Correspondence - CO /o
. 1 -I
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
STAFF REPORT
BUILDING APPEALS BOARD
APPEAL #: 98 -01
-� JOB ADDRESS: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
APPLICANT: R. J. Delorto
REQUEST: A modification to permit the upper story (4th story) of a single - family dwelling,
which is approximately 75% of the floor area of the "room" to which it is "open," to be considered a
mezzanine, in lieu of limiting the floor area of mezzanines to 33% of the floor area of the room to
which they are "open," as specified by code. This request includes the following features:
• A household fire warning system with detectors provided in the crawl space
• An exterior exit stairway added to the lowest floor level for a total of three exits from this level
• All other floor levels have at least two exits, with occupants able to exit without passing through
more than one adjacent floor level
(See the applicants submittal for justification)
CODE AND COMMENTS:
• Relevant Code
The Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code covers dwellings up to three stories
high. Because the subject dwelling exceeds three stories, it comes under the requirements of the
1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Table 5 -B of the OSSC limits Group R, Division
3 occupancies (dwellings) to three stories. An additional story (fourth story) is allowed when the
"... building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout."
Section 507 of the OSSC provides requirements for mezzanines. Mezzanines are not considered
a story. This section provides six requirements for a floor level to be considered a mezzanine as
opposed to a story. The requirement in question specifies that: "The aggregate area of
mezzanines within a room shall not exceed one third of the area of the room in which they are
located." The floor level below the upper floor level of the subject dwelling consists primarily of
one large great room which is "open" to the upper level via a central circular stairway. Based upon
this configuration, the City is accepting the interpretation that the upper floor level is "open" to and
located "within" the great room below. The upper floor level is approximately 75% the size of this
great room. Because 75% exceeds the 33% limit, the code requires the upper floor level to be
considered the fourth story. The applicant is requesting that the 33% limit be modified to allow
75 %.
• History of the Project
* Plans submitted 3/4/96 showing a four story building with a tall crawl space. The lowest level
was identified as a structural diaphragm only and the level above that was called unfinished.
As submitted, the dwelling required sprinklers to be permitted.
* The City issued a permit 3/26/96 for the dwelling as submitted, without requiring sprinklers.
* The applicant constructed the dwelling and finished the "unfinished" area and finished the
"structural diaphragm only" area without submitting plans or obtaining the necessary permits.
* The City passed all inspections up to and including drywall without formally (in writing)
indicating the four -story issue or the additional construction without permits.
* Drywall approved on 10/29/96.
* Slab approved 11/4/96.
* Conference with applicant on 3/5/97 to discuss what would be needed for occupancy. Four
story issue discussed. No formal action taken.
* Shower pan approved 4/3/97.
* Next inspection not requested until 1/29/98 for plumbing final.
* Stop work placed 2/4/98 re: four -story condition and work without permits.
* Subsequent meetings between applicant and staff re: compliance. Three options provided to
the applicant by the City.
* Applicant requests modification 6/23/98 for 75% vs. 33% mezzanine, which is denied.
* Appeal filed 7/7/98.
* Options Provided by the City (to resolve the four -story issue)
Option A: (full compliance)
1. Provide sprinklers for the building pursuant to NFPA 13 -D.
2. Revise original permit to include the bath /kitchenette and access stairway constructed at the
third level from the top (shown unfinished on plans /permit, stairway not shown), the
construction at the fourth level down from the top (not shown on plans /permit except as
structural diaphragm) and the finishing of the third level down from the top (shown unfinished
on plans /permit).
Each of the following two options were provided as an "Alternate Method of Construction"
pursuant to authority given to the Building Official under Section 104.2.8 of the 1996 OSSC.
Option B:
1. Remove the stairway from the lowest level to the bath /exit constructed at the level above
(stairway not shown on plans).
2. Provide access from the main portion of the third level down from the top to the
bathroom /kitchenette added at this level and revise original permit to include the
bath /kitchenette (shown unfinished on plans /permit).
3. Remove the central door /stairway between the lowest two levels and replace with a crawl
access (ladder ok) (not shown on plans /permit).
4. Remove drywall, finish molding and interior doors, and remove and cover exterior doors and
windows at the lowest level, to return this level to an unfinished "crawl" with no exterior
openings and structural diaphragm only, as shown on the approved plans. There should be no
heat to this level. You may leave one outlet and one light fixture /wall switch in both rooms at
this level.
5. Provide one layer of 5/8" Type "X" gyp board at ceiling above the lowest level.
6. Provide a household Fire Warning System with equipment approved and installed in
accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 2, using heat detectors (rate -of- temperature rise) in the
lowest level and the crawl space of the building.
Option C:
1. The dwelling shall be provided with an automatic fire alarm system throughout the structure,
as defined by "total coverage" in UFC Standard 2 -7.4 and 2 -7.5. The installation shall be in
accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 3 (as opposed to Chapter 2). Additionally, an alarm
monitoring system connected to an approved central remote station in accordance with UFC
Section 1007.3.3.6 and NFPA 72, Chapter 4 shall be provided. Testing and certification of the
alarm systems shall be in accordance with UFC 1007.3.4 and 1007.3.4.2. As built drawings of
the system shall be provided pursuant to UFC 1007.3.4.3. A permit and plan review will be
required for the alarm system. Consideration will be given to allowing a heat type detector in
the cooking area (instead of an ionization type detector which may give false alarms for minor
cooking smoke).
2. One layer of 5/8" Type `X' gypsum board shall be attached to the underside of the lowest floor
level of the dwelling.
• Reason for City Denial of Request for Modification
The request for modification was denied because the Building Official could not make the
necessary findings pursuant to Section 104.2.7 of the 1996 OSSC. The findings and City position
are listed below.
"A Special and individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical..." The
Building Official cannot find that financial considerations due to construction undertaken in
violation of the code constitute a special and individual reason warranting a modification of this
scale (75% in lieu of maximum 33 %). The fact that the City did approve the plans and construction
was also not found to be a special and individual reason. This is supported by Section 106.4.3 -
Validity of permit -which states that: "The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans,
specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any
violation of any of the provisions of this code or any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of
the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on plans, specifications and
other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors
on said plans, specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried
on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction."
Essentially, this Section renders the permit for the dwelling invalid. Section 108.1 addresses
inspection approvals: "Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an
approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
•
Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid." Essentially, this Section renders the inspection
approvals invalid. The Building Official is further concerned that granting excessive modifications
due to invalid approvals will set an undesirable precedent towards reducing the City's ability to
ensure safety in buildings.
"The modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code..." The
Building Official cannot find that allowing a mezzanine to be 75% as large as the "room" in which it
is located in lieu of the 33% limit meets the intent of the code regarding mezzanines. The upper
level is clearly a story.
"The modification does not lessen any fire- protection requirements or any degree of
structural integrity." The Building Official cannot find that the omission of a sprinkler system for
a four -story dwelling (the essential impact of the modification) does not lessen a fire - protection
requirement. The fire warning system alluded to in the applicant's request (unclear exactly what
system they are proposing) and the additional exit from the lower level are found to not adequately
mitigate and substitute for the sprinkler system. It is felt that Options B or C above provide for the
necessary mitigation and substitution for the sprinkler system.
FINDINGS REQUIRED:
Pursuant to Section 2.09.100.B of the Tigard Municipal Code, the Board must make the following
findings to grant an appeal for a modification:
• A Special and individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical.
• The modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code.
• The modification does not lessen any fire - protection requirements or any degree of structural
integrity.
Respy ily subm t d,
ofato,/1/
David Scott, P.E.
Building Official
i:'.bldg\david\appeals161398.rep
Mglp - Colo(
$19,4161
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Building Appeals Board Memb rs
FROM: David Scott, Building Official
DATE: October 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Disposition of recent appeal and minutes
Attached please find the minutes from your August 13, 1998 meeting. The minutes have been
approved and signed by Chairman Mitchell. If you note any need for revision, please call me at
639 -4171.
I recently conducted a site visit with the appellant regarding the details of his smoke detection
system. I found that all habitable rooms except the upper floor bedrooms, a den and an office met
your conditions of approval. The appellant will be upgrading the detectors in the upper floor
bedrooms because they are easily accessible via the attic space. I allowed the placement of
battery detectors in both the den and office based upon your action. Both of these rooms were
inaccessible to the point that bringing them into compliance would involve significant disruption.
Both rooms have a fully complying detector immediately outside in an adjacent room. Complying
detectors will also be located in the crawl space and garage. Additionally, the detection system
will be monitored by a U.L. approved central monitoring station. All that remains to conclude the
matter of the appeal is final installation and testing of the detection system and stairway.
I understand that there was some concern regarding the approval of the minutes. There was an
expectation that I would distribute the minutes to those members in attendance prior to signature
by the Chair. Instead, I sent the minutes to the Chair, who signed them after pointing out a couple
of minor revisions. Upon receiving Chair approval, I extracted language directly from the minutes
into the letter to the appellant describing the Board action. I regret any concern this process may
have created. I suggest that at the next Board meeting the Board discuss and decide upon the
preferred process for minute approval.
Thank you again for your time at the hearing. The City appreciates your willingness to serve.
14
/LI W,— CC/t96,
I 1(/ /„ ayl � A
October 7, 1998 CITY OF TIGA
OREGON
R J Delorto
PO Box 230434
Tigard, OR 97281
Re: Smoke Detection System /Board Action /Occupancy (Revisions to 10/5/98 letter in bold)
Appeal No. 98 -01
13783 SW Benchview Terrace
This letter details our agreement reached at our meeting of Friday, October 2, 1998, regarding
the smoke detection system required pursuant to the action of the Building Appeals Board and
lists the other condition of their action. Additionally, this letter itemizes the other issues
outstanding on the property which are unrelated to the Board's action.
The following items are required pursuant to the Board action:
1. Construction of the stairway from the lowest level to grade at the rear of the dwelling.
2. Each of the four bedrooms at the upper floor level will be provided with hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detectors which are tied to the monitoring system. These detectors
are currently not tied to the monitor system, but will be connected.
3. A hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system will be located
in the upper floor level hallway in the vicinity of bedrooms 3 and 4.
4. The "great room," (consisting of the kitchen, nook and family room) will be provided with a
hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system. This detector will
be located in the nook on the side immediately adjacent to the family room area of the
great room.
5. The "front room," (consisting of the living room, dining room and foyer /entry hall) will be
provided with a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system.
This detector will be located in the entry hall area immediately adjacent to the living room
portion of the front room.
6. A hard -wired and interconnected smoke detector will be located in the hall area off of the
family room immediately adjacent to the den. This detector will not be tied to the monitoring
system.
- �
7. The den may be provided with a battery operated smoke detector. u' UCSQ� v4 M �„ tr .,k1 v-
8. The garage will be provided with a centrally located, hard -wired and interconnected ce 10�`1��
detector. This detector will be tied to the monitoring system an be a "rate -of-
temperature- rise" detector. c..,V#,
9. The bonus room on the second lowest floor level will be provided with two hard - wired,
13125 SW Hdll n1 h5s s M- chi,th M A 9T. These detectors will be
located immediately outside of the office adjacent to the bonus room and at the other end
of the bonus room.
10. The office on the second lowest floor level may be provided with a battery operated smoke
detector.
11. The two back rooms off of the bonus room are to be used exclusively for storage. There
will be a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system located
in the hall area immediately adjacent to these storage rooms.
12. The larger storage room on the lowest floor level will be provided with a hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system. This detector will be located
immediately adjacent to the smaller storage room on this level. The mud room located at
the top of the rear stairway leading from this level to the rear of the dwelling will be
provided with a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring
system.
13. The smaller storage room on the lowest floor level will be provided with a hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detector. This detector need not be tied to the monitoring system.
14. The crawl space will be provided with two hard - wired, interconn- ted s • • t etectors tied
to the monitoring system. These detectors shall be located on eac - • o • - "L" formed by
the shape of the crawl sC________ - gear mechanical equipment and the other "a : d the
corner"). These detectoe "r- to -of- temperature- rise" type detectors. cc1\�t,rA
15. The monitoring will be done at the World Security Services Corp. central station located at 0,1 A
4507 N Channel Ave in Portland. (I have attached a copy of their UL listing as a central \'°
station). icKct
It is noted that some of the above described detectors are already installed or wired.
When the detectors are all installed and operable, please schedule an inspection and system
test with your alarm contractor and myself.
When the stairway is constructed, please call the City for an inspection (call Hap Watkins,
Inspection Supervisor).
The following items remain which are not related to the Board action (these are repeated from
my 6/18/98 letter). Feel free to have your consultants call me if they have any questions.
Structural, fill, retaining walls: (numbers correspond to numbers in my 4/6/98 letter,
attached)
1. You make reference to the retaining structures and fill and that info will be submitted. That
submittal needs to include this item as well.
2. The soils report you plan to submit must classify the soil and provide a bearing capacity.
The footing design provided in your response has been reviewed and is accepted pending
the confirmation of the soil bearing value used.
3. You indicate you will be submitting info on the retaining structures and fill. Please be sure
that submittal addresses everything in this item (and items 1 and 2 above) and includes a
soils report, plans and calculations.
4. Shrinkage calculations have been reviewed and are accepted.
5. Calculations submitted under this item partially address the issues listed. Outstanding is
the following:
Complete 5 -level lateral analysis (seismic). The response indicates that the original
analysis took into account the height and grade of structure and that a level was added
to that which was originally reviewed. This lowest "crawl" level is then addressed for
wind loading.. The original analysis was for wind only. The response did not include a
seismic analysis. Please provide a complete, 5 -level seismic analysis including garage
floor and tile roof weight. A field inspection may be necessary to verify what the calcs
call for at the lowest level.
RJ, thank you for your cooperation in working toward bringing this matter to conclusion. Please
call me at 639 -4171, x311, if you have any questions.
Sincere ,
,a/e)\
David Scott, P.E.
Board Secretary, Building Official
c: Jim Hendryx
Bill Monahan
Jim Funk
Hap Watkins
job file
appeal file
i:\ bldg \david\appeals \81398\sdlct2.doc
808 P01 JUN 08 '98 ►x:54
503 - 225 -0933 MASCORD DESIGN ASSOC
r ` ALA N
1305 NW 18th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97
503/22 '161
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC, FAX50 5 -0933 OF
5/21/98
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Attn.: David Scott, 13uiIding Official
RE: Offer of Compromise, RJ. Delorto project, your letter dated April 6 1998.
Dear David,
Mr. Delorto, myself and Payton have reviewed the above mentioned letter you sent to us after our meeting
April 3 1998 and have outlined below what we feel is the most equitable resolution to all parties in this
situation.
Option "A" is not a practical consideration on our pan. The dwelling is complete.
While their are limited conditions we can accommodate within Option "B" we feel it is also to broad of a
scope of requirements to be fulfilled considering the fact the structure is 98% completed. I don't think we
need to hash out the circumstances that have got us all to this point again. All parties have some
responsibility, including the City of Tigard. We just want to get this project closed out. Compromises are
going to have to be made by Delorto etal as well as the City of Tigard.
Mr. Delorto is willing to do the following items, most of which are listed in Option "B" of your above
referenced letter, as well as the letter you prepared and signed on 6/27/97 (see attached). We feel this letter
applies to this situation.
All work will be done within 15 business days of the stop order being lifted. A occupancy permit will be
expected to be issued upon final inspection and approval of the following items.
1. Provide one layer of 5/8" type X gypsum board attached to the floor system common to the under floor
space below the four story apace (Lowest floor level area only).
2. All door openings shall be protected with a tight fitting, self closing solid wood door not less than 1-
3/8" thick
3. All penetrations for pipes, ducts, etc., shall be tightly sealed.
4. Provide a household fire warning system with equipment approved and installed in accordance with
NFPA72, Chapter 2, using heat detectors (rate of temperature rise) in the lowest level and the
crawlspace of the building.
Along with the above Iisted items, Payton Rowell has reviewed the structure for lateral and seismic
considerations as you requested and made the attached observations. He has also prepared a shrinkage
report for your review.
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF ANY OF THE PACES FAIL, TO TRANSMIT
October 5, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
R J Delorto
PO Box 230434
Tigard, OR 97281
Re: Smoke Detection System /Board Action /Occupancy
Appeal No. 98 -01
13783 SW Benchview Terrace
This letter details our agreement reached at our meeting of Friday, October 2, 1998, regarding
the smoke detection system required pursuant to the action of the Building Appeals Board and
lists the other condition of their action. Additionally, this letter itemizes the other issues
outstanding on the property which are unrelated to the Board's action.
The following items are required pursuant to the Board action:
1. Construction of the stairway from the lowest level to grade at the rear of the dwelling.
2. Each of the four bedrooms at the upper floor level will be provided with hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detectors which are tied to the monitoring system. These detectors
are currently not tied to the monitor system, but will be connected.
3. A hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system will be located
in the upper floor level hallway in the vicinity of bedrooms 3 and 4.
4. The "great room," (consisting of the kitchen, nook and family room) will be provided with a
hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system. This detector will
be located in the nook on the side immediately adjacent to the family room area of the
great room.
5. The "front room," (consisting of the living room, dining room and foyer /entry hall) will be
provided with a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system.
This detector will be located in the entry hall area immediately adjacent to the living room
portion of the front room.
6. A hard -wired and interconnected smoke detector will be located in the hall area off of the
family room immediately adjacent to the den. This detector will not be tied to the monitoring
system.
7. The den may be provided with a battery operated smoke detector.
8. The garage will be provided with a centrally located, hard -wired and interconnected smoke
detector. This detector will be tied to the monitoring system and may be a "rate -of-
temperature- rise" detector.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
9. The bonus room on the second lowest floor level will be provided with a hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system. This detector will be located
immediately outside of the office adjacent to the bonus room.
10. The office on the second lowest floor level may be provided with a battery operated smoke
detector.
11. The two back rooms off of the bonus room are to be used exclusively for storage. There
will be a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system located
in the hall area immediately adjacent to these storage rooms.
12. The larger storage room on the lowest floor level will be provided with a hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detector tied to the monitoring system. This detector will be located
immediately adjacent to the smaller storage room on this level.
13. The smaller storage room on the lowest floor level will be provided with a hard - wired,
interconnected smoke detector. This detector need not be tied to the monitoring system.
14. The crawl space will be provided with two hard - wired, interconnected smoke detectors tied
to the monitoring system. These detectors shall be located on each leg of the "L" formed by
the shape of the crawl space (one near mechanical equipment and the other "around the
corner"). These detectors may be "rate -of- temperature- rise" type detectors.
15. The monitoring will be done at the World Security Services Corp. central station located at
4507 N Channel Ave in Portland. (I have attached a copy of their UL listing as a central
station).
I note from the plans you previously provided that a hard - wired, interconnected smoke detector
tied to the monitoring system is shown both in the mud room and on the other end of the
bonus room from the detector mentioned in item 9 above. We did not look at the mud room
last week and my meeting notes don't mention the second bonus room detector. Please
confirm the location and connections of these detectors. Although not required, I will list them
you have installed or intend to install them. It is also noted that some of the above described
detectors are already installed or wired.
When the detectors are all installed and operable, please schedule an inspection and system
test with your alarm contractor and myself.
When the stairway is constructed, please call the City for an inspection (call Hap Watkins,
Inspection Supervisor).
The following items remain which are not related to the Board action (these are repeated from
my 6/18/98 letter). Feel free to have your consultants call me if they have any questions.
Structural, fill, retaining walls: (numbers correspond to numbers in my 4/6/98 letter,
attached)
1. You make reference to the retaining structures and fill and that info will be submitted. That
submittal needs to include this item as well.
2. The soils report you plan to submit must classify the soil and provide a bearing capacity.
The footing design provided in your response has been reviewed and is accepted pending
the confirmation of the soil bearing value used.
3. You indicate you will be submitting info on the retaining structures and fill. Please be sure
that submittal addresses everything in this item (and items 1 and 2 above) and includes a
soils report, plans and calculations.
4. Shrinkage calculations have been reviewed and are accepted.
5. Calculations submitted under this item partially address the issues listed. Outstanding is
the following:
Complete 5 -level lateral analysis (seismic). The response indicates that the original
analysis took into account the height and grade of structure and that a level was added
to that which was originally reviewed. This lowest "crawl" level is then addressed for
wind loading.. The original analysis was for wind only. The response did not include a
seismic analysis. Please provide a complete, 5 -level seismic analysis including garage
floor and tile roof weight. A field inspection may be necessary to verify what the calcs
call for at the lowest level.
RJ, thank you for your cooperation in working toward bringing this matter to conclusion. Please
call me at 639 -4171, x311, if you have any questions.
Sin e -ly,
` �/q ) ' 1
w G � q
David Scott, P.E.
Board Secretary, Building Official
c: Jim Hendryx
Bill Monahan
Jim Funk
Hap Watkins
job file
appeal file
i:\ bldg \david\appeals \81398\sdlet2.doe
LkAck
6. Provide a household Fire Warning System with equipment approved and installed in
accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 2, using heat detectors (rate -of- temperature rise) in
the lowest level and the crawl space of the building.
The following items are not dependent upon choice of sprinklers or the alternate:
v 1. The rear wall footing setback from the descending slope must be investigated and
recommended by a qualified engineer. The investigation of this issue must address all
items listed in Sec. 1806.4.6, which includes consideration of material, height of slope,
slope gradient, load intensity and erosion characteristics of slope material, toward
demonstrating that the intent of the code section is satisfied. The notation on a cross -
section by the engineer that a 6' set -back is adequate is not substantiated by an
investigation addressing the above issues.
2. Soils classification and report (including bearing capacity) must be submitted by a qualified
engineer, along with a revised structural design for the footings. The footing design
submitted by the engineer does not include load from the upper -most floor level and lowest
level deck. OSSC 1804.2.2, 1804.3.1 and 1806.5.
3. The fill and retaining structure placed at the rear of the building requires a permit. The fill,
which is placed on a natural slope steeper that 20 %, must be designed and inspected by a
qualified engineer. The construction of the retaining structure must also be designed by a
qualified engineer. Because the fill and retaining structure exist, the engineer's analysis
must review the as -built condition and determine whether it satisfies code and standard
practice requirements or recommend modifications to correct any deficiencies. The soils
report referred to in items 1 and 2 above can be expanded to include these issues. OSSC
106.1 and UBC Appendix 3306.1, 3313 and 3317.
4. Four story wood construction must have a shrinkage report prepared by a qualified
engineer. A report must be submitted addressing the requirements of OSSC 2318.
5. Wood construction over three stories must be designed by a qualified engineer. OSSC
2326.1, item 1. Specifically, a revised lateral analysis must be submitted showing a 5 -level
wind and seismic analysis (including garage floor and tile roof weight). Also, vertical load
calculations must be submitted for rear wall studs and headers at the first two levels above
grade and the lowest level above grade for the first bearing wall in from the rear wall.
Please respond to the above with your choice and schedule of compliance. Upon receipt of
required reports, plans and calculations staff will review the same for compliance with this letter
and applicable codes. If you or your consultants have any questions, please call me at 639-
4171, x311.
Sincerely,
David Scott, P.E.
Building Official
cc: Hap Watkins, Inspection Supervisor; Jim Funk, Plans Exam Supervisor
OCT -02 -1998 02 :35PM FROM WORLD SECURITY TO 6847297 P.01
'
, _O xac V4 +T
'w I
f aQwvsc :s ca
WORLD SECURITY SERVICES CORP.
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: (c g
TO:
FROM: 2rensr-
00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000
Including this cover page, there are .Z pages in this fax. If you have received
this fax in error, please notify sender at (800) 537 -4882. If you have not received
all pages in this fax, please notify sender.
� '� ���
•
!„
•
WORLD SECURITY SERVICES CORP.
4507 N. Channel Ave.
Portland, OR 97217
(503) 240 -8668
(800) 537 -4882
Fax (503) 240 -2274
. . .
•
(NI
1 :............;:ri!Ati...,... _,.;,......_....7.‘...z7t ., ,,,,,,,,....nt\kit::471144,trirn:71±1.,..(7.,....":,:•1.:..k.I.14:1,,!..,kiittimiy.:171;..i.:',..;'..4:;:c.:::!!!:11.441L-44""futil:prt4...A.:,,,,,;;;;,:i.!:,...;1:..crl.,::...;:1,1L10:1::ii'ij;:t., ..; ' I -.. •144 :41;17Y .:1-i::•:::11-1..A.:74-74:1,...„"t-ir:::::1
CL
. ,.."1 ,,, ' - '. •1 i'l); 1 ) . • .14 :• '' .11+14:1 1 V t i 4 111.."& 11 0 4 44M.t.M 4 ht i - l it 4i441 1 41 , 1 1• 114171141 4, 1 ; j f At . k ..4 4414111 ' 11114411.1.1 'iil'•" 01 :1 1 " 4414.11'.
cn
CV , -,, .. •- - • ,,-_,...k•- , ..... t r.a.4 i ..._-_,,, 1 1P....._ -_,),5 J. ,, , - • -.,. • . -,...,4,-.•yr „.,,,,.._,......,1" 1.. ., x ,..... - •,• ,...... ;.- ,
1 ';.t - - ' ••• • • ' T - •■••••••11 ---- --•••• ' ''t - ,. - ., ''''' '----"..- a '• - > a '••-2 — 4' , --'-'"'■::f?-•_;••• ''''w - ...7"..;,,'='-'__ -1,.. -Z.' '' a - - . ' '011P - .. • ....' .- .41 ' r•- '
C - i. _,. r, ., -•-• • . • - • • ..• •,, •.'. ' • . • ,' IL ••• • 7 • ,. I ri, ,,,, .,,,, ,...., ., . , . , ... cr .. , • , ;... . . ■ .' . • j et ''' , ...., .,, • , ,C , ■•■•■•• - 21 • 4. ' , ....C. i , ..... ' . , j ' ...., '.",,,,... .... ,,
7 1 .
CO q '...■ : , ..- .. 4 E , Ch:-' _T.!' ,%:-..\
w . . ... .
- . .
C 41 7 4U 1'' ' ' r -
,4 , - •Vi
!‹.4. E.
..1 .. o e.... .
7:-.7; 4 V p:14;,..,-...„..,...„.
,.,.... ....,,j,,,,...t....,:,
'
.....,,, ,-,...,,,,,. ...
ri,tv Intsry zigs .1.,,...1?„5„.„..4.,...
r 1-4,
I
0
I
...,„„....4.... - € •
i ' ,•;",- T.,,!..„:_. :-.
at 2 :1 , 4
3.. _ 4 t 1 ,•.„ , (
, _..4 -1.--. a •x"" V. : 1 . :,1.1,.,.:.
1 9 ... j.. i
1 1„:4.e.i..1- : ::-:.1
. i....,..}, 4 k*:.,.,
....d4.,••••-,
li
7,...),..„ ...:.,:::
.„.....„,......,..,,....%
) 41 4
Ctrtificate of lilcintitrobip •,,,:,.),•-.....ov......
....",...1:.:
g ,,...:- .,
k., ......1..,.. •1 -
4 1 .-
• =..,
c.'•
•ArP14 '4.
,, ,-,._ 8 % . ,.,. •-, , ap r
1% or ..... etturitts e tirtlicts , corp
..,„,„..,k1..,,,.
e
o ..--t.. ,,J-... 17,
2 '. •-"f• -,..:., -•••0 .
C ";'■•. ' . No a rtgular meinbu in goo 0 otanbing or the International t
ratIt anotiation tommineo to ,,, .....V....s. a Y ..
rt...- Z.I•cr..:•'
E ,:-. .....•:=.;:z;:;riti i• ' A*•-i .',.'„/
0 •••:., '4 ''' promoting the grolutit txpanoion anb proftsoionatisin Within the struritti in4uotry
GE ..:• „ . .
ii_ 1
: 4 i
. _,•A's
1 Zrox . • , i i ',.
i•::.0s....)) _ • M k 'ir ( g..
..9.,,..-.T.,....N. . - ,..,. .
E p.I. -o-.......r..v..;•,_ ,...
C--`21ter.11221.--- .. . •
-
c..1
Otter A. Luger -,
0 fp" t.'-‘• . :P. 5, ,,,,;;" ) . 4 ..„.. .. itianalb Ir. 6111(10r
—
. ,
.--. 0/um itic Otto or 041" ..-.• ..: i
CO I?' ' ;' ;. -• ''
.. ,.. . s.
cn • •
1 ::-(c..-5., ..\ .,ric. . • .
0 ''',.'":-.---- ,'•,`c., , . -
• — • .,
I ,..,-. :- At.t."41: • . . . . . -4/'7.: .
1 - ... .. . ..
u 1 • 4.. Ot,....°Ti.,,,A,, .-..-- ---' .:. -4. 7:,,,:,..v...--_,,,,,, -,,,,,--,- 4,-:-.<. -„,::.....:....-- •'--,_,.-' • .
0 11 ::I.,-.W1:104 ' - -". ;,.... `" -.."-..;:?...'..'"W-•-•""--.49'..-Y,, .2 ..f.' '1 Z ' . ' . ' • ' -•"'
• - 4%-- —.- . - - •• " -7 4 MX • - -- ---•st* - — -- f,i , - , - - -`..,
f 1 1,...t., ,e °‘ , '"; ( 1.4".A;'.."..? : •. - -:- r '. :" .. . •.:-;:-.•-• 1- -; 440%7 '..-:c: r. :-.%--:: -14 .
1/4' t . ,A,•11:::: ■ : ., .. 'Y . • ..%:•::, -.; -:, :. ; ,.. `. ' •„ ' -'.....'-':- • ' -, ' ".= -1 -4.' f ' ', .* 7 ; :, ... -i4k4-:;%,--.A--:.",'.;(2,‘';'?"-At.,41!"..t';',..]:..,-;.5Z,...;',"•trW.7.:7•;:ti.,4%,,, ... , , N -..,. , 1
1 11- )
,..• , 1 % 1 t . i ' r•-;.'; :-''''':'-'11.!';:t.51.:".i4:7';A-e.%,kft : --,-..r 117,4111:e4;'.11,S;‘...,;;::i%.,,r:iri,c'o',
.., . ..,•,..,,,,: .... ! ....., .. ... i! ..- ...... . ;.., . ., is frlt 1 ; 4.14.1-ho pi. qs^it{.1 ..0
.... ... ...... .._ ......... . .. ... .. .... . . . ........:..,.. . . . .1', !,.,
r- • -.-.,.■..........„..-..
P PIMIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIII " : '7-'- ';: ' .
in
0 .7 '''.P .- ' 'f.' .• , '
41: . ,'
Arr,•- ',I'm f . pl ... BOARD
cr) THE IQ cERTI j !„,..,,,,A‘ y ,„,,
N
r- • , ..,_ - 1 - ?,7 " P...- - ",'
, 4- t:4'
uo 11 4 : •.-i , •!<••:-`. , :0;:,•,, , .:: /.. .itis
[; ri
E
vvr
'. ?.:........; ::
"Jo' r safe ., .::.. ..!...........,.., ..
• ,
contiiiiinitres ,
o
1-
, , . .. , ....
.. , •. • . ,.. . . • ..
Alli : . • : . :
....
t ..
.,.
.. . ,
.. .
. , .
•
. .„-,;',.,,::...:,..: - .-:. .. • - • ....:
CERTIFIED .,,14.0,.4.,..,:,....-....,.:, .
. .
A. 4,,P, • •,,.„-•:-. - ., ........';'
. A
or 44 0 it, ..,,,!..1k...?A:?;,,1,.f.:;\ ces C c-
, ... ..
....„, . ...:,
, ...:„..,.....04.,.....i.„ .::.:0..,‘:::.:,. .,. ,::.:....en,,,,..:..)...!...
• , AI.
ifiC alarEg il f 1 12 ::•-;....„.• ,,.. ,
,_ ...4 ,,.• :L. „ •-• ..,.„ . i„,,,,,..,,,,,::,•,.... •
,..,,,-.::„,.....„.....,,.,. „.,,,,,,..,,:„.„:::,,t•-.
ce l'g...ri 1 ." , ...."?."A`;'• '''. • ..:-.A ,<-••••,•0'.- -, .
m
1 he Nigli ar ,-. .- • ::1#.701 .40 '''.".3'. ;< :: -.1 •••;•
u ,,:. - ..-...C.-Arw ..•-. ::'," i'.;'-:
Lu .
Lr) Installation Otialtiv .... ..- . • .:
.: . '„:;..;.;s.,z(;;.........Yr:':-?;i; . - • ..- ' 7- t ..:.. :4:!■"•:!: .-,.
;A:':::.; -,". I
al . . . :"...-:: .: • • ..i '.'•••`..--,- .•• '•:•• .4;4 :"••••••••••!' . , ..
. . <. . ,.
1I eieCt1'0111C seCtil'Ily _.-•-
ce --,---- - ... ----■-,.,.., , ... ; .,: -!;•••• .• ".: •
o ;11)(1 lilt 1-11et1 - •-:;!...-. ■=,., •• •• \-- . ,.:', -,;',..„ -,. .--
m -
r • "••••■.-3 *. ,. .: . i•I' ••■
o . . . 4 .- ; , . , . ' . . .
CE
Through June 1999 . .
. .
.:._. . . v...... . , ....... ..
. . ,
............. . „.... .. .•,.... • •
z .
a _ . . . . . . . • . . ' '... - --•• • '• • •.'.; `'..,:::' -,
r - • ••••••• •• , .., - N. '•'•''.'' ,,,,,,•%/' 4"....i ',' ' : • ' T .-.- • i
. •'.'-...:,. ,1/4.: ...' ."...i.
.. .. . ...
N .. \ .
' .: ,, • .... ;'/
. ,- • .• '
.. ... • . '
.„.
• ' .. :. -.. : : ' • .:*'..„,: ••■?... :* ' - c.„e- ''''.... ' .-- •• .
oo .. . . ..
• - - .. •. ---. „..,.. .. .
HAS MET THE IQ GUIDELINES - - - - -.•• . - -
cr) .. • :,
al
.-I . •• • •••
CREATED TO ENSURE
N '
CD
I - 1 •
I - . ... .
QUALITY ELECTRONIC SECURITY & .•..
.• 1
. ,
LIFE SAFETY SERVICES
. ,..
..
. .. .
f ,*.. . •
• • . • • . . .
(Alk
August 21, 1998 CITY OF TIGA
OREGON
R J Delorto
PO Box 230434
Tigard, OR 97281
Re: Smoke Detection System and Temporary Occupancy
Appeal No. 98 -01
13783 SW Benchview Terrace
I have reviewed the plan you provided indicating the type and location of smoke detectors in
the dwelling. Comparing this to the condition of the Board (re- stated below), I find that
additional detectors and connections to the alarm monitoring system are necessary.
Specifically, every habitable room requires a detector which is hardwired, interconnected with
the others and connected to the monitored alarm system. I am assuming that all detectors
shown are hardwired and interconnected. Please indicate if that is not the case. The following
appear to be the areas of deficiency:
1. Detectors in all four upper floor bedrooms are not shown as connected to the alarm
monitoring.
2. No detector is located in the family room, living room, dining room and den on the main
floor level.
3. One room on the lower floor level has no detector and another has one not connected to
the alarm monitoring.
4. Small room at the "storage" level has a detector not shown as connected to the alarm
system.
5. Only one detector is shown in the crawl space.
Please submit a plan showing detectors in all habitable rooms and the additional rate of rise
detectors in the crawl space. Also, confirm that the detectors are all tied into a monitoring
station that alerts the Fire Dept. Once you have the system installed, we will do a field test.
Here is the text of the condition:
"The subject dwelling shall be provided with a smoke detection system in addition to the smoke
detection required by the code, meeting the following criteria:
a) Detectors shall be located in the garage, all habitable spaces and the crawl space,
b) detectors shall be "rate of rise" detectors in the crawl space and elsewhere (such as the
garage), as appropriate, and
c) detectors shall be hardwired, interconnected and connected to an approved central
monitoring station to give notice to the fire department in the event the detection system
activates (the Building Official may allow an independent battery operated detector on a
case by case basis where it is impractical to install a hardwired and interconnected detector
due to the removal of finish surfaces which cannot be patched or repaired)."
As is indicated in item c) of the condition, I may allow a battery operated detector under very limited
circumstances. If your alarm consultant believes it is not possible to install the required detectors
without destroying special finishes, appropriate members of my staff and I will meet with you and
13125 0 M flatJD (503) 684 -2772
Enclosed with this letter is a 90 day Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Issuance of a final
Certificate of Occupancy is subject to the following:
1. compliance with all conditions of the Appeals Board action
2. approval of all final inspections
3. satisfaction of the five items noted in my April 6, 1998 letter as "not dependent upon sprinklers
or the alternate."
Please call me at 639 -4171, x311, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
avid Scott, P.E.
Board Secretary, Building Official
c: Jim Kenworthy
Jim Funk
Hap Watkins
job file
is\ bldg \david\appeals\81398\sdlet.doc
/115- T ,ze -ln /0 !o
August 21, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD
R J Delorto OREGON
PO Box 230434
Tigard, OR 97281
Re: Notice of Building Appeals Board Action
Appeal No. 98 -01
13783 SW Benchview Terrace
At its August 13, 1998 meeting, the Tigard Building Appeals Board took the following action on
the above referenced appeal:
Granted the request for a modification to permit the upper story (4th story) of a single - family
dwelling, which is approximately 75% of the floor area of the "room" to which it is "open," to be
considered a mezzanine, in lieu of limiting the floor area of mezzanines to 33% of the floor
area of the room to which they are "open," as specified by code. Approval is subject to the
following conditions:
1. An exterior stairway shall be provided at the lowest floor level of the subject dwelling, leading
from the deck located at the rear comer down to grade at the rear of the dwelling.
2. The subject dwelling shall be provided with a smoke detection system in addition to the smoke
detection required by the code, meeting the following criteria:
a) Detectors shall be located in the garage, all habitable spaces and the crawl space,
b) detectors shall be "rate of rise" detectors in the crawl space and elsewhere (such as the
garage), as appropriate, and
c) detectors shall be hardwired, interconnected and connected to an approved central
monitoring station to give notice to the fire department in the event the detection system
activates (the Building Official may allow an independent battery operated detector on a
case by case basis where it is impractical to install a hardwired and interconnected detector
due to the removal of finish surfaces which cannot be patched or repaired).
The Board also granted a 90 -day Temporary Certificate of Occupancy while compliance with the
Board action and other outstanding items is pending. Please call me at 639 -4171, x311, if you
have an • uestions. 4. , ;
Since ly,
4‘
a id c•tt, - .E.
Board Secretary, Building Official
c: Jim Kenworthy
Jim Funk
Hap Watkins
job file
appeal file
i:\bldg\david\ap als \81398\actlet.doc
13125 SW Hall Blv Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
4 1
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Building Appeals Board Members
FROM: David Scott, Building Official
DATE: July 21, 1998
SUBJECT: August 13, 1998 meeting
Enclosed please find the agenda for the 8/13/98 meeting (rescheduled from the 7/31/98 meeting
at the request of the applicant). Because the Board has not met yet this fiscal year, our ordinance
requires that the Chair and Vice -Chair be elected. Gene Birchell, current Chair, will preside over
the election of the Chair and Vice - Chair. The newly elected Chair will then preside over the
remainder of the meeting.
A staff report will be sent to you soon. Please call me at 639 -4171 if you have any questions.
toolo
CITY OF TIGAR
AGENDA OF THE BUILDING
APPEALS BOARD OREGON
August 13, 1998
9:30 AM
Town Hall, Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
I. BUSINESS
A. Self Introductions
B. Election of Officers
II. APPEALS
A. (Appeal No. 98 -01) 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
Request for modification to permit the upper story (4th story) of a single - family
dwelling, which is approximately 75% of the floor area of the "room" which it is
open to, to be considered a mezzanine, in lieu of limiting the floor area of
mezzanines to 33% of the floor area of the room to which they are "open," as
specified by code.
III. ADJOURNMENT
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING APPEALS BOARD
MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1998
TOWN HALL, TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW Hall Blvd
BUSINESS
Due to the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, Building Official, David
Scott, called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m.
A. Self Introductions
Present: David Scott (Building Official), Alan Mitchell, Hawk Au, Russ Leach, John
Chamberlain, Charlie Schultz, Dick Krippoehne, Jim lmbrie and Dick Frahler.
Members absent: Randy Sebastian, Bob Pike and Ray Miller (excused); Martin
Brown and Gene Birchell (unexcused).
B. Election of Officers
David Scott opened nominations for Chair and Vice - Chair. Dick Frahler nominated
Alan Mitchell for Chair. Alan Mitchell accepted the nomination. Alan Mitchell was
elected Chair by unanimous vote.
Alan Mitchell opened nominations for Vice - Chair. Russ Leach nominated Hawk Au
for Vice - Chair. Hawk Au accepted the nomination. Hawk Au was elected Vice -Chair
by unanimous vote.
II. APPEALS
A. (Appeal #98 -01, 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
Request for modification to permit the upper story (4th story) of a
single - family dwelling, which is approximately 75% of the floor area
of the "room" which it is open to, to be considered a mezzanine, in
lieu of limiting the floor area of mezzanines to 33% of the floor area
of the room to which they are "open," as specified by code.
In attendance for the applicant:
Jim Kenworthy, Linhart Peterson Powers Associates, and RJ Delorto, owner.
Abstentions and Conflicts:
Allen Mitchell indicated that his firm has had previous business with the owner, but that he
was not involved in the matter.
Dick Frahler indicated that his brother knew the owner, but that he did not.
Board Action:
Motion Dick Frahler, second Hawk Au, that the requested modification be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. An exterior stairway shall be provided at the lowest floor level of the subject dwelling,
leading from the deck located at the rear corner down to grade at the rear of the
dwelling.
2. The subject dwelling shall be provided with a smoke detection system in addition to the
smoke detection required by the code, meeting the following criteria:
a) Detectors shall be located in the garage, all habitable spaces and the crawl
space,
b) detectors shall be "rate of rise" detectors in the crawl space and elsewhere (such
as the garage), as appropriate, and
c) detectors shall be hardwired, interconnected and connected to an approved
central monitoring station to give notice to the fire department in the event the
detection system activates (the Building Official may allow an independent battery
operated detector on a case by case basis where it is impractical to install a
hardwired and interconnected detector due to the removal of finish surfaces which
cannot be patched or repaired).
Further, the Board finds that:
1. There is a special and individual reason that makes strict compliance with the code
impractical inasmuch as the requirement for a sprinkler system was not identified until
the building was nearly complete, requiring substantial and irreparable damage to finish
surfaces to install a sprinkler system,
2. the approved modification conforms with the spirit and intent of the code insofar as the
additional exit required will provide that the dwelling has no less than 2 exits per floor
level, which represents an increased exit capacity beyond what is required by code,
and the required smoke detection system provides early warning to occupants of the
dwelling and the fire department, facilitating quick egress from the dwelling and a
quicker fire department response in the event of a fire, and
3. the approved modification does not lessen any fire protection requirement inasmuch as
the required exiting and early warning system substantially mitigate the absence of a
sprinkler system or the limitation of a smaller mezzanine.
Further, a 90 -day Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted while compliance with the
Board action and other outstanding items is pending.
Motion passed unanimously.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
A
T' ST: David Scott, Building Official
z .
ATTE Alan Mitchell,
_. 08/20/98 THU 07:49 FAX 503 620 4315 FLTRRER SCOTT LLC ''L45 — o - 6/O6 , 01001
Law Offices
FURRER & SCOTT 'Lc
Gary E. Enloe Mailing Address: pest Office Box 23414, Tigard, Oregon 97281
Patrick J. Rum rer Street Address: 9185 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon 97223
Douglas L. Gallagher Telephone: (503) 6204540
Douglas R H eokland' Facsimile: (503) 620 -4315
Alan L. Mitchell
Thomas J. Murphy *Also admitted in Washington
Michael J. Scott
August 20, 1998
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
This do•;wnent c)ntainQ confidential information which is intended only for the individual recipient named below.
Unless you are such named recipient or the authorized agent thereof. you are prohibited from reeding, copying,
distributing o: otherwise diaaeminating such information. If you received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately and return the communication via first class postage. You will be reimbursed for
the postage colts. Thank you.
To: David Scott, PE
Of: Building Official, City of Tigard
Facsimile Number: (503) 684-7297
Number of pages including this page: 2
Will original be mailed: No
From: Alan L. Mitchell
Facsimile number: (503) 620 -4315
Reference for this facsimile: 8/13/98 Appeal Board Minutes
Our File: ALMTIGAR001
Dear David:
In general, the minutes look fine to me. I just have a few
questioner.
1. As :0 Section IA, "Self Introductions," Jim Imbrie is not
listed even though I believe that he was in attendance. Also, Bob
Pike is not listed as being absent. vS -\ (X. ; V 3
2. In Section II, "Board Action," did we discuss the type of
construct :ion of the exterior stairway from the rear deck? I have
a dim memory that "exterior stairway" may be a term of art in the
building code and do not want to require a more restrictive
construction type than necessary. 01* o, e y
3_ Please let me know how you want me to sign the minutes: Do you
need an original signature or is a facsimile signature acceptable?
Finally, thank you for the board roster. I note that Bob Pike
is :Listed as an "ODC" member category and that the "Attorney"
category is empty. Since I passed the bar after first joining the
appeal board, do you want me to "move" into the Attorney category
and J.00k for a new "General Public" member? I guess the main
08/20/98 THU 07:50 FAX 503 620 4315 FURRER SCOTT LLC 2002
• David Scott, PE
Building official, City of Tigard
August 20, 1998
Page
question is whether any of this matters; i.e., are there
requirements for the membership categories on the board?
Give me a call at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Alan L. Mitchell
ALM
AGENDA OF THE BUILDING ( CITY OF TIGARD
APPEALS BOARD OREGON
August 13, 1998
9:30 AM
Town Hall, Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
I. BUSINESS
A. Self Introductions
B. Election of Officers
II. APPEALS
A. (Appeal No. 98 -01) 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
Request for modification to permit the upper story (4th story) of a single - family
dwelling, which is approximately 75% of the floor area of the "room" which it is
open to, to be considered a mezzanine, in lieu of limiting the floor area of
mezzanines to 33% of the floor area of the room to which they are "open," as
specified by code.
III. ADJOURNMENT
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
4
JO
r a .;
e ,
D
,,,./...,_ .
, ._ __",...„ ,__
M I I 1 1 1 1 kr
ZO
` �� Ii i
.■ •W' .....-.-......- --,—, II: mime" / ,. 4... CONCRETE ��rr/ 1� A
WALL ---) 1 = .., s.
OPEN �� 4 ��
. . co >"
v.
11" , i . : i
NI I I
FI """" I ' \
NISH SH GROUND 11 4
ELEVATION f j kr
11 Bo
. -Z-
•
k
if ' 6 C ■ 6--\,,,A___,_
CROSS SECTION
ELEVATION LOWEST GRADE
i
ck%-01 .
,..., „
`/gyp � \R�/y� \� , . \ ; ^1
pl x S
`Q. R
1 ' ti ',1
:111 ,
WINE -
���� 1111111111
NII I III
NI III!: II III
: `. IliIIIIIIIIIIII I lg..
44” PROTECTIVE
WALL OR RAILING
Enclosed mezzanine area - 10 percent of mezzanine level
Occupant Toad in enclosed area - 10, whichever results in larger area
PARTITIONING PERMITTED ON MEZZANINE
...... . .
.,..
BATHROOM:: >; :BEDROOM _
t
1 LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN
1 ,
.,.;:L=,:::..,_;:t..1-3.3...%,. ,
. .._„_... F .'"4 -f ' - y � .
'ice � 2 ''� � �
;� �: _ 4 - ` a te. ' _:
0t444 Tom- $�Y'r }I
- 1.?;T:=',_ ("....: l' ::::::::::::::':::.::::.::::::.:.::;.:::::'::::'::':::,::::::':-::*:::., ......"...,..::::'''' .' -,e;" Ege'L'"*V.4711=0
41 ` 9.I e ri 1
.41! f '
'•
i
l
1
Mezzanine may be enclosed when occupant load does not exceed 10.
• Max. floor area: Office, 1,000 sq. ft.
(based on 10 occupants) Storage, 3,000 sq. ft.
Dwelling, 3,000 sq. ft.
RECEIVED
JUL - 7 1998
1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
' ql. BUILDING APPEAL APPLICATION
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
TO THE APPELLANT:
These forms must be filled out completely. One (1) set of plans (exclusive of any plans in for plan check)
clearly outlining the areas of appeal, must be submitted along with these forms.
APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED 21 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED HEARING.
Information about the status of your appeal may be obtained by calling the Building Official at
(503) 639 -4171.
PROJECT INFORMATION
his peal involves (check one)
Erection of a new structure Change of occupancy: to
Alteration of /addition to an existing structure r/ Other (specify): 2 — C
\\,,,,
Proposed use of structure: il,CSoNA/— �C€s�'De 6 1 � GYvo v vN.. X 1 y`q
Project address: /3 783 Be 'Wilt' / 7beRALE Plan Check No. 03
Cross streets: Between B‘.�04 c T. and 7/iit>D4k Permit No. ffl' % 96 -0 /O4
Legal: Lot y3 /44,csrr, Block k57 No. of stories `34/ �'
Addition Occupancy group °STe. Jf, ia+Ly � 3
Owner's name ;. ....T, p � /_QQe i-o Construction type kaD��*Aso ' --) V t
Owner's address /3783 Hem - 7
E( P. .-2
In accordance with the provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code, I hereby make application to appeal the
requirements of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code as outlined in the attached sheet(s). S d y-i6cilc)(1°
Appellant's name (print): k70 Phone No. 5 5a1 6 9c9 a
Appellant's address: Street /IF8Y g 6/YI"erti_- r Q,
City 7crerfteiii State OR Zip Code cj72 .23
Signature 76/ r.'- Date ,h /2 )/
For Office Use nly:
o�� ? / 9K
Received by: Appeal date:
Date received: 'I \'4 \`t$ Appeal No. «`X°
Receipt No. )( Previous appeals: i
Page 1 of 2
!!' BUILDING APPEAL APPLICATION
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd. (Second Sheet)
Tigard, Oregon 97223
TO APPELLANT:
Each item you are appealing requires a separate second sheet to be filled out. All requested information
is to be filled out completely with as much detailed information as possible.
In granting any appeal, wherein the requirements of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code are modified,
the Board shall first find that a special individual reason makes compliance with the strict letter of Title 14
of the Tigard Municipal Code impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent and
purpose of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code and that such modification does not lessen any fire -
protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity.
In granting any appeal wherein an alternate material or method of construction not specifically prescribed
by Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code is approved, the Board shall first find that the proposed design,
material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed by
Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability,
safety, and sanitation. The Board shall require that sufficient evidence or proof must be submitted to
substantiate any claims that may be made regarding such alternates.
THE APPLICATION MUST CLEARLY STATE AND DEMONSTRATE HOW THE APPEAL SATISFIES
THE REQUIREMENTS ABOVE. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Building Code Section (s): 566 /TTAei-e6 Requires:
Requested Appeal Modification Iternate Material or Method: Circle One):
L !o7? / /eq uu -sT
Gat Y O)FiC°R 7C
wee A c.1+-
Reason /Justification For Alternate: /U /a Kd R J.c U &
n2, /9 J r)r47 -) o7) .
e
SIGNED: r ! � `. SIGNED: / `. al) lu�
Ap pellan v ilding Division
i:\bldg\bldgappl
Page 2 of 2
7 -27 -1998 2:08PM FROM P. 2
June 14, 1998
City of Tigard
David Scott, P.E.
Building Official
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: R. J. Delorto Dwelling, Located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
Dear Mr. Scott.
Pursuant to our previous discussions and correspondence relative to the above captioned
dwelling, I am requesting that you grant a modification under the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code, 1996 ed., (OSSC) Section 104.2.7. Specifically 1 am requesting you to
allow the subject dwelling to be approved as a three story structure with the upper floor
(top floor) considered a mezzanine pursuant to OSSC Section 507.
Practical difficulties exist which merit that you grant a modification for this individual
case. The practical difficulties are:
1. The dwelling was substantially completed prior to the ruling that the building
was a four story structure, and
2. The City inspectors were clearly aware of the fourth floor level prior to the
installation of interior finish materials. and
3. The interior finish materials are of a type that cannot be modified to
accommodate the installation of a sprinkler system without sustaining
permanent damage, even at great expense.
In this case, special individual reasons make the strict application of the code impractical.
Further, the proposed mitigating factors identified in the attached code analysis provide a
basis for a determination that the intent of the code will be achieved for fire safety, life
safety and structural integrity.
Your favorable consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Ralph J. Delorto
7=07 -1998 2:09PM FROM P.3
CODE ANALYSIS
Subiect Structure:
R. J. Delorto dwelling located at 13783 Benchview Terrace, Tigard, Oregon.
Background:
The subject dwelling was constructed with a fourth floor level added during the course of
construction. City of Tigard building inspectors were aware of the added floor level prior
to approval of the framing inspection. At the time of final inspection, the City classified
the structure as a four -story building and required the dwelling to be retrofitted with an
automatic fire sprinkler system prior to final approval or that the lowest floor level be
demolished and returned to open crawl space.
In a letter dated April 6, 1998, the City Building Official identified two options, either of
which would be considered a suitable remedy. Option A contained two (2) conditions.
Option B contained six (6) conditions. Additionally, five (5) other requirements were
identified in addition to the conditions described in Option A or Option B.
Findings:
The strict application of the code would be to classify the structure as a four story
dwelling and require the structure to be modified to achieve compliance with the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). In part, and most significantly, this would necessitate
the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system or the demolition of the lowest floor
level to restore it to an unused crawl space.
Both of the suggested options are unacceptable, given the dwelling is substantially
completed and interior finishes are in place.
ORS 455.020 (1) states, in part, "The state building code shall establish uniform
performance standards providing reasonable safeguards for health, safety, welfare,
comfort and security of the residents of this state who are occupants and users of
buildings " In situations where it is necessary to apply the code retroactively,
added emphasis must be placed on the term "reasonable ".
Analysis:
A review of the upper floor level (top floor) has been made to determine whether it will
comply with the provisions for "mezzanines" under OSSC Section 507. The upper floor
level does comply with Items 1. & 2. of Section 507. It also complies with Item 4.,
Exception 1.2, since the enclosed area does not exceed an occupant load of ten (10).
,7 -407 -1998 2 : 1 OPM FROM P. 4
•
Based upon two (2) occupants per bedroom the total occupant load is eight (8). The
upper floor also complies with Item 4., Exception 2 and is not required to be open to the
room in which it is located since two exits are provided and the center stairway gives
direct access to the main entry.
The upper floor level does not comply with Section 507, Item 3. The maximum area
permitted for a mezzanine is limited to 1/3 of the area of the room in which it is located.
The area of the room on the main floor level, that the upper floor level (mezzanine) is
within, is approximately 2,127 square feet. Thus, the mezzanine would be limited to a
maximum area of 709 square feet. The actual area of the mezzanine level is 1,599 square
feet or 75% of the area of the room it is located within.
Solution:
Seek a modification under the authority of Section 104.2.7 to modify the 33% limitation
for mezzanines under Section 507, Item 3. and consider the upper floor level to be a
mezzanine.
In order to grant the modification, the building official must first find that there is a
"practical difficulty" which makes the strict application of the code impractical for a
"special individual reason ". The practical difficulties in this individual case are as
follows:
1. The dwelling was substantially completed prior to the ruling that the building
was a four -story structure, and
2. The City inspectors were clearly aware of the fourth floor level prior to the
installation of interior finish materials, and
3. The interior finish materials are of a type that cannot be modified to
accommodate the installation of a sprinkler system without sustaining
permanent damage, even at great expense.
The Building Official must also find that the modification is in conformance with the
intent and purpose of the code and that such modification does not lessen any fire -
protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. Justification for this finding
44 should be based upon the following mitigating factors:
��
(7d;(‘ 1. The dwelling has been provided with a household fire warning system and
additional detectors will be provided in the crawl space if required, and
2. Plans will be revised to show the actual construction of the areas that were
modified during the construction of the home, per Item 2 of Option A, as
specified by the building official in the April 6, 1998 letter, and
,74-07-1998 2 : 1 1 PM FROM P. 5
9
41 /4 3. The five (5) items noted in the April 6, 1998 letter from the Building Official
as "not dependent upon the choice of sprinklers or the alternate" will be
complied with, and
I ,7 4. A code complying exterior exit stairway will be added to provide
additional path of emergency evacuation from the lowest floor level of the
dwelling, which is not required by code, and
5. With the additional exit from the lowest floor level, each floor level will have
¢ at least two exits. The overall exiting system will allow a person to exit from
1 any floor level to the exterior without having to pass through more than one
414 pr adjacent floor. The lowest floor level will have a total of three exits, one of
which will exit directly to the exterior. Overall, the exit system will be
superior to the minimum exits required by code.
un; lu sion:
Given the circumstances surrounding this issue and the timing of the City's ruling that the
dwelling is a four story structure, a modification pursuant to OSSC Section 104.2.7 is
warranted for the reasons stated above.
-End
SUMMARY OF EVENTS AT 13783 BENCHVIEW TERRACE
R. J. DELORTO RESIDENCE MST96 -0106
03 - - Application received by JH - Pass
03 - - Check for parcel restrictions by JH - Pass
03 - - Plans routed to Plans Examiner by BON - Pend
03 - - Permit created by RT - Pass
03 - - Plans approved by Plans Examiner by RT - Pass - Reviewed and
approved as two story building w /unfinished basement. Number of stories was
not reviewed correctly. Later review revealed the designer's plans did not
totally match the site or comply w /code. The plans submitted and approved
show a 4 story building (upper finished level, finished street level, unfinished
level one below street and a tall crawl space (tall enough to be the first story
instead of a basement) with a structural floor for structural purposes only within
the tall crawl. The plans should have been rejected for review under 1&2
Family Code (Technically a four story as drawn) as exceeding limits of the
code (or reviewed under OSSC which would allow 4 story construction fully
sprinklered). Allowing the structural floor only may have been ok due to
unique circumstance of lot, etc.
Note: BT and the rest of the plans exam staff are now cognizant of this
issue and are carefully checking to see that the submitted plan actually
reflects the condition on the lot.
03 - - Plans routed to DSTS by RT - Pass
03 - - Ready to issue by CJS - Pass
03 - - Issue combination permit by BON - Pass
03 - - Issue plumbing signature form by BON - Pass
03 - - Issue electric signature form by BON - Pass
03 - - Footing Inspection by KS - Disapproved - Required H/3 setback for
footings from slope per code or alternate from qualified engineer. Good call on
the slope issue, however, should have suspected the height issue. Policy
now is to review height at this stage.
04 -01 -96 Footing Inspection by KS - Approved as noted - A few minor
corrections.
04 -09 -96 Foundation Inspection by KS - Disapproved - Not ready for inspection.
This inspection was also an opportunity to suspect the height issue.
Policy now is to review again at this stage.
04 -10 -96 Foundation Inspection by KS - Approved as noted - Reminder to dig
interior pier pads down to proper setback from descending slope and
minor notes about anchor bolt and hold down installation.
05 -10 -96 Rain Drain Inspection by GS - Part - Around the house only
08 -13 -96 Shearwall Inspection by RB - Part - Needed ply shear membrane at
garage ceiling and blocked joints - Gave OK to install siding. This is
the point at which an inspector should have obviously recognized an over
height structure (because all framing is in place) and stopped work for
further review.
09 -13 -96 Plumbing Underfloor Inspection by MS - Pass
09 -13 -96 Plumbing Top Out Inspection by MS - Fail - Incomplete DWV test.
09 -20 -96 Plumbing Top Out Inspection by MS - Pass
Sometime in Sep or early Oct RB states he had a conversation with
contractor regarding the building height being outside CABO limits (4
story) and that he would make that correction statement at the framing
inspection. RB discussed this with JF and BT. They visited the site, but no
action in the files. All this should have been written and entered in the file
and the job investigated and stopped.
09 -30 -96 Mechanical Inspection by KS - Disapproved - Eight corrections -
Four story construction should have been recognized here as the
inspector is structural certified (CABO)
10 -04 -96 Gas Line Inspection by MS - Fail - No pressure on test gauge.
10 -08 -96 Gas Line Inspection by KS - Approved
10 -08 -96 Mechanical Inspection by KS - Approved
10 -16 -96 Electrical Service Inspection by MJR - Disapproved - Label not
completed and signed.
10 -16 -96 Electrical Rough In Inspection by MJR - Disapproved - Minor
corrections (Standard). Here is another place that four story
wood construction should have been recognized as a code
violation (Romex not allowed), however, electrical inspectors are
not normally well versed in determining number of stories.
10 -21 -96 Framing Inspection by KS - Disapproved - Electrical rough not
approved - Contractor assured him that framing and shearwall were
already approved by another inspector. No record available at site
and not with inspection card. Inspector terminated inspection with
no further action on contested inspection. Appears contractor in error re: a
previous framing approval. No framing inspection performed.
Shearwall Inspection by KS - Disapproved - Contractor assured him
shearwalls were already approved except garage ceiling (which is true, see
8/13/96). Inspector terminated inspection as there were no records of previous
visits.
10 -22 -96 Electrical Service Inspection by MJR - Pass
10 -22 -96 Electrical Rough In Inspection by MJR - Pass
10 -23 -96 Framing Inspection by GL (LP2A contract inspector) - Approved -
Minor correction for attic access insulation dam and lateral braces at
trusses, which the contractor was in process of completing. This is
another phase that the inspector should have recognized four story
construction. It is also the last phase where sprinklers could have been
added without "additional" costs." He had some doubts, but considered an
approved plan as the ruling document (erroneously). He says that the
stairs are not contiguous and that alone was confusing in that size house.
Still, there is a lot of finished area that was not on the approved plans. The
house was already insulated also, and was assumed to have had a
previous framing inspection. He did say, however, that he did a
thorough inspection, even having to take out insulation here and there.
Insulation Inspection by GL - Approved - Minor corrections for caulk. The fact
that insulation was in place reflects that contractor insulated without
framing inspection approval.
10 -29 -96 Gyp Board Inspection by GS - Pending - No address; Install gyp
board on garage pulldown ladder; renail board as marked. Four -story
condition should have been caught here as well.
11 - - Slab Inspection by RB - Pass - Garage floor slab
Note the long interval until the next inspection.
03 - - Miscellaneous Inspection by RB - Conference - Met with contractor to
discuss what he would have to complete for occupancy.
04 - - Approach /Sidewalk Inspection by PI - Pass
04 - - Plumbing Top Out Inspection by MS - Pass - Shower Pan OK
04 -30 -97 Around this date plans exam supervisor discovers BT has not
been adequately verifying lot topography from subdivision drawings with
topo and plans submitted by builders. Result is that homes are being
approved that do not match the lot and are really taller than shown on the
plan. This means the designers are submitting erroneous plans, but we
were not catching it. Further, it appears that inspectors were not catching
the discrepancy between the approved plan and the lot condition. Some of
this resulted in bldgs permitted as 3 story ending up as four -story and
buildings over - height for the zoning code.
This fact contributed to some extent with the subject case.
05 - - Miscellaneous Inspection by MS - Pass - No other entries.
06 -27 -97 DS signs alternate to be used for those buildings that turned out
four - stories due to above scenario. Alternate allows installation of rate of
rise heat detectors in crawl space with a gyp board "lid" at the top of the
crawl in lieu of the required sprinklers. This is limited to buildings with 3
habitable levels and a tall crawl which is the first story. Discussions
continue re: what to do re: the zoning code height issue.
The subject residence cannot utilize this alternate because it has 4
habitable levels on top of a tall crawl (almost a five story building).
07 - - Hold note entered in memo field of final inspection line by JF - This
is not usually reviewed at each inspection, and before data entry position was
not always available to field inspectors. Note read "Do not final until structure
has been altered to reflect requirements of side hill construction. Is the building
a 4 story?" Would have been better to stop the job at this point.
11 - - Permit expires due to no requested inspections in 6 months.
12 -15 -97 Language finalized to be used for zoning code issue. JH
"approves" not strictly enforcing for these buildings. (See attached).
01 -08 -98 Miscellaneous Inspection by RB - Note - He was notified by neighbor
that the building was occupied. Investigated, but couldn't tell. Took
pictures of height, retaining wall at rear, fountain, etc. Discussed the
building with supervisor and plans examiner. This is when we picked up on
the fill and retaining structures placed without permits /inspections.
01 -08 -98 Hold for Code Enforcement by JH - Hold - Recommended no more
inspections until height issue resolved, etc.
01 -15 -98 Phone call (Message) to Mr DeLorto regarding expired permit and
15 day notice to renew by application to building official. This was
requested by inspection supervisor to get the contractor to call for
an inspection to keep the permit active, but mostly to allow inspectors
access by invitation to inspect for number of stories.
01 -28 -98 Hold Release by HAP - Release - Hold released pending results of
determination of number of stories during final plumbing inspection.
01 -29 -98 Final Plumbing Inspection by RB - Fail - Not ready. Building is in fact
a four story structure. Reported same to supervisor.
02 -04 -98 Stop Work Order Placed by RB - STOP - Finished level marked as
unfinished on plans, finished another level marked as engineered
support on plans (now the first of four floors). Work without permit
and work beyond scope of permitted project. Inspection reveals that
contractor finished the level he called unfinished and finished the
structural floor into a full finished level (as well as adding a bathroom at an
intermediate level), none of which was on the approved plans. It is
unknown if these levels were finished when GS did gyp board inspection
on 10- 29 -96. May have been finished without us approving.
02 -24 -98 HAP and JF met with R J DeLorto and his consultants at City Hall at
1:00 to discuss the ramifications of the four -story condition, ie how it placed the
building under a different code, the many requirements of the different code for
four story construction, what was needed by the structural engineer to address
"as built" conditions (full five level lateral analysis)and the requirements for
geotechnical engineering for added fill and retaining walls not on permit.
03 -02 -98 Notice of Tort Claim received. Sometime shortly thereafter HAP
notifies LP2A because their inspector approved the framing without catching the
4 -story issue (they indemnify us for their negligence, so if we are sued, we would
look to them for some responsibility).
03 -05 -98 Stop Work Order Placed by RB - STOP - Stop work orders are being
taken down - this is the third time posted.
04 -02 -98 Meeting with RJ and his designer and attorney, BM, JH, HAP,DS. DS
and HAP to visit site and communicate "bottom line" to RJ.
04 -03 -98 DS, HAP visit site.
04 -06 -98 DS letter to RJ giving 2 options re: sprinklers and dealing with other
non - optional compliance issues.
05 -21 -98 Letter received from designer re: "Offer of Compromise" which
referenced attached engineering which was not attached. No response given
until the engineering received.
06 -18 -98 After receiving complete submittal, DS letter to RJ indicating response
not adequate, advising of appeal right.
06 -23 -98 fax received from RJ of a 6 -14 -98 dated letter requesting modification
to allow a 75% mezzanine in lieu of the max 33% permitted by code.
06 -25 -98 DS letter to RJ denying request for modification, offering 3rd option re:
sprinkler issue and re- advising of appeal right.
07 -07 -98 Appeal of denial of modification request received.
Note: It is clear certain staff made errors or were unable to deal with the hillside
issues. The increased level of understanding and scrutiny at the plan review and
inspection stages should mitigate this problem. Some training has been done to
get us to where we are currently. We are planning some additional training to
keep the issue relevant and fresh.
There may be a few other homes existing and occupied where the home is really
a four -story because of the tall crawl. These would have been inspected and
finaled before we became aware of the inadequate understanding and scrutiny
on this issue. It is difficult to assess this without doing a lot by lot survey of
occupied homes. These homes are most likely limited to 3 habitable levels over
the crawl. Those homes under construction during the discovery and reaction to
this problem which were four stories because of the tall crawl were dealt with by
the alternate instituted to address the issue. RJ's home is the only one which
was beyond the scope of even the alternate.
Key to initials:
BM - Bill Monahan JH - Jim Hendryx or Jean Heitschmidt
BON - Bonnie Mulhearn KS - Ken Schreindl
CJS - Charles ( ?) temp at counter MJR - Mike Rudd
DST(s) - DST staff MS - Mike Sheehan
GL - Gary Lampella (LP2A) PI - Paul Izatt
GS - George Steele RB - Rick Bolen
JF - Jim Funk RT - Bob Thompson
/ rig&& — OV /O C,o
June 25, 1998
R J Delorto Construction
PO Box 230434 CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard, OR 97281 OREGON
RJ:
Thank you for your response to my June 18, 1998 letter regarding the dwell' • • - ed
at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace. In your letter you request a modification of the code
to define the upper story of the dwelling as a mezzanine and offer additional exits and a
fire warning system as mitigation. This letter will indicate our response to your request
and the necessary actions you must take.
Modification:
Your request for a modification to consider the upper story of your dwelling as a
mezzanine (with the accompanying conditions) is denied. This denial is based upon the
following:
Section 507 of the OSSC limits the floor area of a mezzanine to one third the area of
the room in which it is located. Your request seeks to use the entire floor area of the
main story as the basis for determining the allowable area of the "mezzanine,"
resulting in a mezzanine with a floor area 75% of the "room" below. We compute this a
little differently because you must eliminate the closed off rooms at the main level,
getting a 77% figure (not much different). Further, because the wall /stairway separating
the kitchen /family room area from the front area demises the remaining portion of the
main floor into two rooms, we are even applying a liberal interpretation of "room" in
reaching the 77% figure. In either case, this is an excessively high percentage and
cannot be considered as meeting the intent of the code, even with the additional
features you suggest.
However, as we considered your proposal, another option for an alternate was
established. Therefore, in addition to the existing options A and B, option C is
approved.
Option C:
The subject dwelling may be four stories without sprinklers with the following
conditions:
1. The dwelling shall be provided with an automatic fire alarm system throughout the
structure, as defined by "total coverage" in UFC Standard 2 -7.4 and 2 -7.5. The
installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 3 (as opposed to Chapter
2). Additionally, an alarm monitoring system connected to an approved central
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
remote station in accordance with UFC Section 1007.3.3.6 and NFPA 72, Chapter 4
shall be provided. Testing and certification of the alarm systems shall be in
accordance with UFC 1007.3.4 and 1007.3.4.2. As built drawings of the system
shall be provided pursuant to UFC 1007.3.4.3. A permit and plan review will be
required for the alarm system. Consideration will be given to allowing a heat type
detector in the cooking area (instead of an ionization type detector which may give
false alarms for minor cooking smoke).
2. One layer of 5/8" Type `X' gypsum board shall be attached to the underside of the
lowest floor level of the dwelling.
3. All floor levels shall have access to two exits.
The conditions of obtaining permits for the finished areas not originally shown on the
plans remain in effect.
will allow you 15 days to evaluate this new option before taking any further action. I
would also like to remind you of your right to appeal my determination to the Building
Appeals Board. I have attached the necessary appeal forms for your use if you decide
to pursue an appeal. If we have not received either a completed appeal application or
written commitment and commencement of compliance with Option A, B, or C within 15
days, we will issue a Notice of Infraction.
Also, all of the requirements for the structural, retaining structure and fill from my June
18, 1998 letter remain. I will allow these issues to be addressed at the same time as
the sprinkler issue.
If you or your consultants have any questions, please call me at 639 -4171, x311.
Sincer -1 ,
4 i 1 \
i. Scott, P.E.
Building Official
cc: Hap Watkins, Inspection Supervisor, Jim Funk, Plans Exam Supervisor
Michael C. Daily, Alan Mascord Design Associates, Inc.
JON -98 ¥UE 03:06 PM R. J. DELORTOCONST. 5036383804 P.01
June 14, 1998
City of Tigard
David Scott, P.E.
Building Official
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: R. J. Delorto Dwelling, Located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace
Dear Mr. Scott,
Pursuant to our previous discussions and correspondence relative to the above captioned
dwelling, I am requesting that you grant a modification under the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code, 1996 ed., (OSSC) Section 104.2.7. Specifically 1 am requesting you to
allow the subject dwelling to be approved as a three story structure with the upper floor
(top floor) considered a mezzanine pursuant to OSSC Section 507.
Practical difficulties exist which merit that you grant a modification for this individual
case. The practical difficulties are:
1. The dwelling was substantially completed prior to the ruling that the building
was a four story structure, and
2. The City inspectors were clearly aware of the fourth floor level prior to the
installation of interior finish materials, and
3. The interior finish materials are of a type that cannot be modified to
accommodate the installation of a sprinkler system without sustaining
permanent damage, even at great expense.
In this case, special individual reasons make the strict application of the code unpractical.
Further, the proposed mitigating factors identified in the attached code analysis provide a
basis for a determination that the intent of the code will be achieved for fire safety, life
safety and structural integrity.
Your favorable consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Ralph J. Delorto
JON -23 -98 TUE 03 :07 PM R. J. DELORTOCONST. 5036383804 P. 02
S 23- 1 2 1F'M FRnt -1 P. 3
'2
CODE ANALYSIS
Subiect Structure:
R. J. Dclorto dwelling located at 13783 Benchview Terrace, Tigard, Oregon.
Background:
The subject dwelling was constructed with a fourth floor level added during the course of
construction. City of Tigard building inspectors were aware of the added floor level prior
to approval of the framing inspection. At the time of final inspection, the City classified
the structure as a four -story building and required the dwelling to be retrofitted with an
automatic fire sprinkler system prior to final approval or that the lowest floor level be
demolished and returned to open crawl space.
In a letter dated April 6, 1998, the City Building Official identified two options, either of
which would be considered a suitable remedy. Option A contained two (2) conditions.
Option B contained six (6) conditions. Additionally, five (5) other requirements were
identified in addition to the conditions described in Option A or Option B.
Findings:
The strict application of the code would be to classify the structure as a four story
dwelling and require the structure to be modified to achieve compliance with the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). In part, and most significantly, this would necessitate
the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system or the demolition of the lowest floor
level to restore it to an unused crawl space.
Both of the suggested options are unacceptable, given the dwelling is substantially
completed and interior finishes are in place.
ORS 455.020 (1) states. in part, "The state building code shall establish rur form
performance standards providing reasonable safeguards for health, safety, welfare,
comfort and security of the residents of this state who are occupants and users of
buildings " In situations where it is necessary to apply the code retroactively,
added emphasis must be placed on the term "reasonable ".
Analysis:
A review of the upper floor level (top floor) has been made to determine whether it will
comply with the provisions for "rne77Anines" under OSSC Scction 507. The upper floor
level does comply with Items 1. & 2. of Section 507. It also complies with Item 4.,
Exception 1.2. since the enclosed area does not exceed an occupant load of ten (10).
JUN -23 -98 TUE 03:08 PM R. J.DELORTOCONST. 5036383804 P.03
6 -2:3 -1868 2: 14PM FROM P.41
Based upon two (2) occupants per bedroom the total occupant toad is eight (8). The
upper floor also complies with Item 4., Exception 2 and is not required to be open to the
room in which it is located since two exits are provided and the center stairway gives
direct access to the main entry.
The upper floor level does not comply with Section 507, Item 3. The maximum area
permitted for a mezzanine is limited to 1/3 of the area of the room in which it is located.
The area of the room on the main floor level, that the upper floor level (mezzanine) is
within, is approximately 2,127 square feet. Thus, the mezzanine would be limited to a
maximum area of 709 square feet. The actual area of the mezzanine level is 1,599 square
feet or 75% of the area of the room it is located within.
Solu tioa:
Seek a modification under the authority of Section 104.2.7 to modify the 33% limitation
for mezzanines under Section 507. Item 3. and consider the upper floor level to be a
mezzanine.
In order to grant the modification, the building official must first find that there is a
"practical difficulty" which makes the strict application of the code impractical for a
"special individual reason ". The practical difficulties in this individual case are as
follows:
1. The dwelling was substantially completed prior to the ruling that the building
was a four -story structure, and
2. The City inspectors were clearly aware of the fourth floor level prior to the
installation of interior finish materials, and
3. The interior finish materials are of a type that cannot be modified to
accommodate the installation of a sprinkler system without sustaining
permanent damage, even at great expense.
The Building Official must also find that the modification is in conformance with the
intent and purpose of the code and that such modification does not lessen any fire -
protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. Justification for this finding
should be based upon the following mitigating factors:
1. The dwelling has been provided with a household fire warning system and
additional detectors will be provided in the crawl space if required, and
2. Plans will be revised to show the actual construction of the. areas that were
modified during the construction of the home, per Item 2 of Option A, as
specified by the building official in the April 6, 1998 letter, and
,JUN -23 -98 TUE 03:09 PM R. J.DELORTOCONST. 5036383804 P.04
6 - 23 -1 99R 2 : 1 .PM FROM P. 5
3. The five (5) items noted in the April 6, 1998 letter from the Building Official
as "not dependent upon the choice of sprinklers or the alternate" will be
complied with, and
4. A code complying exterior exit stairway will be added to provide an
additional path of emergency evacuation from the lowest floor level of the
dwelling, which is not required by code, and
5. With the additional exit from the lowest floor level, each floor level will have
at least two exits. The overall exiting system will allow a person to exit from
any floor level to the exterior without having to pass through more than one
adjacent floor. The lowest floor level will have a total of three exits, one of
which will exit directly to the exterior. Overall, the exit system will be
superior to the minimum exits required by code.
Conclusion:
Given the circumstances surrounding this issue and the timing of the City's ruling that the
dwelling is a four story structure, a modification pursuant to OSSC Section 104.2.7 is
warranted for the reasons stated above.
-End-
/ —rte /a !o
June 18, 1998
w iit A LA
R J Delorto Construction
PO Box 230434 CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard, OR 97281 OREGON
RJ:
Thank you for your response to my April 6, 1998 letter regarding the dwelling • -: • at
13783 SW Benchview Terrace. I will respond to your letter in two sections. The first
will deal with the issue of the sprinkler requirement . The second will address the
structural, fill and retaining structure items that must be addressed not withstanding the
sprinkler matter.
Sprinkler issue:
Unfortunately, your response fails to fully satisfy Option A or Option B for achieving
compliance with the sprinkler issue
It is clear from your response that you do not intend to voluntarily comply with Option A
or B. Therefore, the City is prepared to initiate formal enforcement of this matter
through our municipal court, beginning with a Notice of Infraction. Before we issue the
notice, the City would like to advise you of your right to appeal my determination to the
Building Appeals Board. Please note that the Board has no authority to waive
requirements of the code. Specifically in this case, the Board cannot waive the
requirement for sprinklers to deal with the four -story issue (Option A). The Board can
hear an appeal regarding the specific conditions of approval I have prescribed in
granting an Altemate Method of Construction in lieu of sprinklers. These conditions are
listed as Option B. Please be advised that the Board must make certain findings in
granting any appeal. In this case we are dealing with an Alternate Method of
Construction, covered under Section 2.09.100.0 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The
required findings under this section are that the altemate method "...is, for the purpose
intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed by Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal
Code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and
sanitation. The Board shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to
substantiate any claims that may be made regarding such alternates." The issue of
project status is not one of the criteria the Board must or can consider. I have attached
the necessary appeal forms for your use if you decide to pursue an appeal. If we have
not received either a completed appeal application or written commitment and
commencement of compliance with Option A or B within 15 days, we will issue a Notice
of Infraction.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
Structural, fill, retaining walls: I will respond to these issues in order of my letter.
1. You make reference to the retaining structures and fill and that info will be
submitted. That submittal needs to include this item as well.
2. The soils report you plan to submit must classify the soil and provide a bearing
capacity. The footing design provided in your response has been reviewed and is
accepted pending the confirmation of the soil bearing value used.
3. You indicate you will be submitting info on the retaining structures and fill. Please
be sure that submittal addresses everything in this item (and items 1 and 2 above)
and includes a soils report, plans and calculations.
4. Shrinkage calculations have been reviewed and are accepted.
5. Calculations submitted under this item partially address the issues listed.
Outstanding is the following:
• Complete 5 -level lateral analysis (seismic). The response indicates that
the original analysis took into account the height and grade of structure and
that a level was added to that which was originally reviewed. This lowest
"crawl" level is then addressed for wind loading. A field inspection is
necessary to verify what the talcs call for at the lowest level. The original
analysis was for wind only. The response did not include a seismic analysis.
Please provide a complete, 5 -level seismic analysis including garage floor
and tile roof weight.
Similarly to the sprinkler issue, I will allow 15 days for you to present the necessary
information listed above and apply for the necessary permits for the fill and retaining
structure issues. If we have not received this information in 15 days, these issues will
be included in the Notice of Infraction. These permit and structural code provisions are
not appealable to the Board.
RJ, I share your desire to see this matter closed. However, I cannot overlook or waive
specific and applicable code requirements to accomplish this. I look forward to
resolving this issue. If you or your consultants have any questions, please call me at
639 -4171, x311.
Sincerely,
ieGii/C
David Scott, P. .
Building Official
cc: Hap Watkins, Inspection Supervisor, Jim Funk, Plans Exam Supervisor
Michael C. Daily, Alan Mascord Design Associates, Inc.
April 6, 1998
114 11 1 0
R J Delorto Construction ' i
PO Box 230434 CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard, OR 97281
OREGON
Pursuant to our meeting of April 3, 1998, and my site visit today, this letter presents a i ems
necessary to resolve issues, for the dwelling, located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace,
regarding the four -story, work added without permit and fill /retaining structure issues. As we
discussed, this dwelling is a four -story building by definition, and as such is regulated by the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Fill is regulated by Appendix Chapter 33 of the
1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which Tigard has adopted.
Two options exist to address the global four -story issue:
- Option A: (Full compliance with code on sprinklers)
1. Provide sprinklers for the building pursuant to NFPA 13 -D.
2. Revise original permit to include the bath /kitchenette and access stairway constructed at
the third level from the top (shown unfinished on plans /permit, stairway not shown), the
construction at the fourth level down from the top (not shown on plans /permit except as
structural diaphragm) and the finishing of the third level down from the top (shown
unfinished on plans /permit).
- Option B: (Alternate to sprinklers)
1. Remove the stairway from the lowest level to the bath /exit constructed at the level above
(stairway not shown on plans).
2. Provide access from the main portion of the third level down from the top to the
bathroom /kitchenette added at this level and revise original permit to include the
bath /kitchenette (shown unfinished on plans /permit).
3. Remove the central door /stairway between the lowest two levels and replace with a crawl
access (ladder ok) (not shown on plans /permit).
4. Remove drywall, finish molding and interior doors, and remove and cover exterior doors
and windows at the lowest level, to return this level to an unfinished "crawl" with no exterior
openings and structural diaphragm only, as shown on the approved plans. There should be
no heat to this level. You may leave one outlet and one light fixture /wall switch in both
rooms at this level.
5. Provide one layer of 5/8" Type "X" gyp board at ceiling above the lowest level.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
6. Provide a household Fire Warning System with equipment approved and installed in
accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 2, using heat detectors (rate -of- temperature rise) in
the lowest level and the crawl space of the building.
The following items are not dependent upon choice of sprinklers or the alternate:
1. The rear wall footing setback from the descending slope must be investigated and
recommended by a qualified engineer. The investigation of this issue must address all
items listed in Sec. 1806.4.6, which includes consideration of material, height of slope,
slope gradient, Toad intensity and erosion characteristics of slope material, toward
demonstrating that the intent of the code section is satisfied. The notation on a cross -
section by the engineer that a 6' set -back is adequate is not substantiated by an
investigation addressing the above issues.
2. Soils classification and report (including bearing capacity) must be submitted by a qualified
engineer, along with a revised structural design for the footings. The footing design
submitted by the engineer does not include load from the upper -most floor level and lowest
level deck. OSSC 1804.2.2, 1804.3.1 and 1806.5.
3. The fill and retaining structure placed at the rear of the building requires a permit. The fill,
which is placed on a natural slope steeper that 20 %, must be designed and inspected by a
qualified engineer. The construction of the retaining structure must also be designed by a
qualified engineer. Because the fill and retaining structure exist, the engineer's analysis
must review the as -built condition and determine whether it satisfies code and standard
practice requirements or recommend modifications to correct any deficiencies. The soils
report referred to in items 1 and 2 above can be expanded to include these issues. OSSC
106.1 and UBC Appendix 3306.1, 3313 and 3317.
4. Four story wood construction must have a shrinkage report prepared by a qualified
engineer. A report must be submitted addressing the requirements of OSSC 2318.
5. Wood construction over three stories must be designed by a qualified engineer. OSSC
2326.1, item 1. Specifically, a revised lateral analysis must be submitted showing a 5 -level
wind and seismic analysis (including garage floor and tile roof weight). Also, vertical load
calculations must be submitted for rear wall studs and headers at the first two levels above
grade and the lowest level above grade for the first bearing wall in from the rear wall.
Please respond to the above with your choice and schedule of compliance. Upon receipt of
required reports, plans and calculations staff will review the same for compliance with this letter
and applicable codes. If you or your consultants have any questions, please call me at 639-
4171, x311.
/A Sincer ly,
avid Scott, P.E.
Building Official
cc: Hap Watkins, Inspection Supervisor; Jim Funk, Plans Exam Supervisor
April 6, 1998
R J Delorto Construction
PO Box 230434 CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard, OR 97281
OREGON
Pursuant to our meeting of April 3, 1998, and my site visit today, this letter presents all items
necessary to resolve issues, for the dwelling, located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace,
regarding the four -story, work added without permit and fill /retaining structure issues. As we
discussed, this dwelling is a four -story building by definition, and as such is regulated by the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Fill is regulated by Appendix Chapter 33 of the
1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which Tigard has adopted.
Two options exist to address the global four -story issue:
- Option A: (Full compliance with code on sprinklers)
1. Provide sprinklers for the building pursuant to NFPA 13 -D.
2. Revise original permit to include the bath/kitchenette and access stairway constructed at
the third level from the top (shown unfinished on plans /permit, stairway not shown), the
construction at the fourth level down from the top (not shown on plans /permit except as
structural diaphragm) and the finishing of the third level down from the top (shown
unfinished on plans /permit).
- Option B: (Altemate to sprinklers)
1. Remove the stairway from the lowest level to the bath /exit constructed at the level above
(stairway not shown on plans).
2. Provide access from the main portion of the third level down from the top to the
bathroom/kitchenette added at this level and revise original permit to include the
bath/kitchenette (shown unfinished on plans /permit).
3. Remove the central door /stairway between the lowest two levels and replace with a crawl
access (ladder ok) (not shown on plans /permit).
4. Remove drywall, finish molding and interior doors, and remove and cover exterior doors
and windows at the lowest level, to return this level to an unfinished "crawl" with no exterior
openings and structural diaphragm only, as shown on the approved plans. There should be
no heat to this level. You may leave one outlet and one Tight fixture/wall switch in both
rooms at this level.
5. Provide one layer of 5/8" Type "X" gyp board at ceiling above the lowest level.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
1 •
6. Provide a household Fire Warning System with equipment approved and installed in
accordance with NFPA 72, Chapter 2, using heat detectors (rate -of- temperature rise) in
the lowest level and the crawl space of the building.
The following items are not dependent upon choice of sprinklers or the alternate:
1. The rear wall footing setback from the descending slope must be investigated and
recommended by a qualified engineer. The investigation of this issue must address all
items listed in Sec. 1806.4.6, which includes consideration of material, height of slope,
slope gradient, Toad intensity and erosion characteristics of slope material, toward
demonstrating that the intent of the code section is satisfied. The notation on a cross -
section by the engineer that a 6' set -back is adequate is not substantiated by an
investigation addressing the above issues.
2. Soils classification and report (including bearing capacity) must be submitted by a qualified
engineer, along with a revised structural design for the footings. The footing design
submitted by the engineer does not include load from the upper -most floor level and lowest
level deck. OSSC 1804.2.2, 1804.3.1 and 1806.5.
3. The fill and retaining structure placed at the rear of the building requires a permit. The fill,
which is placed on a natural slope steeper that 20 %, must be designed and inspected by a
qualified engineer. The construction of the retaining structure must also be designed by a
qualified engineer. Because the fill and retaining structure exist, the engineer's analysis
must review the as -built condition and determine whether it satisfies code and standard
practice requirements or recommend modifications to correct any deficiencies. The soils
report referred to in items 1 and 2 above can be expanded to include these issues. OSSC
106.1 and UBC Appendix 3306.1, 3313 and 3317.
4. Four story wood construction must have a shrinkage report prepared by a qualified
engineer. A report must be submitted addressing the requirements of OSSC 2318.
5. Wood construction over three stories must be designed by a qualified engineer. OSSC
2326.1, item 1. Specifically, a revised lateral analysis must be submitted showing a 5 -level
wind and seismic analysis (including garage floor and tile roof weight). Also, vertical load
calculations must be submitted for rear wall studs and headers at the first two levels above
grade and the lowest level above grade for the first bearing wall in from the rear wall.
Please respond to the above with your choice and schedule of compliance. Upon receipt of
required reports, plans and calculations staff will review the same for compliance with this letter
and applicable codes. If you or your consultants have any questions, please call me at 639-
4171, x311.
Sincer Iy, , / 7 7 A
A 4
avid Scott, P.E.
Building Official
cc: Hap Watkins, Inspection Supervisor; Jim Funk, Plans Exam Supervisor
/-f 9'4 oeia
4 i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TOE -r ~ "' ',
FROM: Bill Monahan
a
DATE: March 2, 1998
SUBJECT: Tort Claim Notice of R. J. DeLorto Construction, Inc.
Attached is a copy of a Tort Clam Notice which I received today from the Schwabe,
Williamson & Wyatt law firm on behalf of DeLorto Construction and /or Ralph J. DeLorto.
The issue is the issuance of building permits for a single - family residence at 13783 Benchview
Terrace, Tigard, Oregon.
Would you please ask a member of the building staff to look into this matter and provide me
with a memo explaining the facts which led to this claim. For instance, when did the alleged
tort occur, and what is the status of the property?
I would like to receive this information by the end of this week so that I am prepared to
discuss this matter, if necessary, with Council next Tuesday.
Thank you for your assistance.
WAM \jh
attachment
c: Loreen Mills
i:\admlbill1030298 -2. doc
S CIErvvABE PACWEST CENTER, SUITES 1600 -1800
\\TI1LLIA1\4SON 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 -3795
pp ATT �� TELEPHONE: 503 222 -9981 • FAX: 503 796 -2900 • TELEX: ELEX: 650 - 686 -1360
P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DONALD JOE WILLIS
r Friri
Direct Line: (503) 796 -2929
E-Mail Address: jw @schwabe.com
February 27, 1998 MAR 0 ? ;g�;
City of Tigard
c/o Mayor Nicoli and
William Monahan
City Administrator
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97005
Re: Tort Claim Notice on Behalf R. J. DeLorto Construction, Inc.
and/or Ralph J. DeLorto
Please take notice that this firm represents R.J. DeLorto Construction, Inc. and Ralph J.
DeLorto. The corporate entity was issued a building permit from the City of Tigard for the
construction of a single family residence at 13783 Benchview Terrace, Tigard, Oregon.
A claim for damages is or will be asserted against the City of Tigard or its appropriate
officers, employees and agents.
The time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim, so far as known to the
claimant, were the negligent acts of the officers, employees or agents of the City of Tigard in
either unreasonably refusing to approve the construction of the above - referenced structure so that
its owner can be issued a certificate of occupancy for it or, alternatively, for the negligent acts of
the various officers, employees or agents of the City of Tigard in performing a plan check,
issuing building permits, doing numerous inspections and signing off on the same, so the
building could progress, all without ever informing the holder of the permit that the City claimed
the structure, depicted on the drawings approved and upon which the permit was based, is
somehow in violation of its codes and regulations.
The amount of damages has not been determined but would be those required to make the
changes now demanded under what is claimed to be the applicable codes and rules and value to
compensate for delay in completing this home.
The time that this claim accrued is less than an 180 days from the date of this letter when
the City of Tigard through its various officers, employees or agents took the position that the
structure does not comply with the codes and regulations claimed by the City of Tigard.
PORTLAND SEATTLE VANCOUVER WASHINGTON
OREGON • WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
503 222 -9981 206 622 -1711 360 694 -7551 202 785 -5960
(16/055555/033333/JW/735.
City of Tigard
February 27, 1998
Page 2
The name of the claimant is R.J. DeLorto Construction, Inc. or Ralph J. DeLorto.
Correspondence concerning this claim may be sent to Donald Joe Willis, Schwabe Williamson &
Wyatt, 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, Portland, Oregon 97204..
Sincerely,
di ! //A
►' on. d Joe Willis
JW:sle
cc: Ralph J. DeLorto
SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT
(16/055555/033333/JW/735830.1)