Pop Top Inspection - InspectionNews

Bruce Breedlove · #1 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 04:31 PM

I got a call for an inspection last week on a house that was described as a 2-story built in 1956 with a stone foundation. I told the client that based on the stone foundation and the neighborhood where the house is located I would guess the house was actually built in the 1920s or earlier. (Houses in that neighborhood were built in the 1890s through the 1920s.)

My first impression of the house was that it was a very well-preserved 100-year-old two-story house. The roof on the front had a steep pitch and the roof at the rear (over the upper level rooms) had a very low pitch. But the stairs to the upper level just did not seem to fit in for a house of that era.

As I got further into the house the clues seemed to point to the fact that the upper level was not original. Yes, most of the finishes were "period" but several things were not. The giant bathtub and very cool " Leonard Model B10 Thermostat Mixing Valve" (Patented 1923) fit in nicely with the period radiators, interior trim, doors and hardware, leaded glass transom windows, stained glass window overlooking the stairs, and light fixtures. But the modern double-pane double-hung windows were in sharp contrast to the single-pane single-hung windows with sash cords found on the main level.

As I looked closer I noticed the upper level finishes did not match the main level finishes. The upper level was all drywall; the lower level was mostly plaster. The doors and hardware were different (some of the upper level hardware was reproduction). The radiators were different styles. The wood floors were modern. The main level had an old masonry fireplace; the upper level had a modern pre-fab fireplace.

I popped my head in the very tiny attic and saw modern rafters (nominal size), modern hangers, modern plywood roof decking, modern batt insulation, etc. In the basement and crawlspace the floor system and exterior walls have been shored and reinforced (most work done correctly, some not). Deteriorating unreinforced concrete placed on the inside of the stone foundation appeared to be circa 1920s.

When I laid all the evidence out and looked at the big picture I concluded that the building started out as a single-story house built somewhere between 1900 and the 1920s. Sometime around the mids '80s or later the rear roof was removed and reframed to accomdate the addition of rooms at the upper level (the former attic). This is what I call a "Pop Top". The original structure was modified to accomodate the additional loads of the upper level.

This proved to be a very interesting inspection. I was impressed at how someone took a common, small, old house and converted it into a very nice, highly desireable office building. Sure, I found a long list of problems that are common for a house of this age (structural, electrical, plumbing, etc.) but my overall impression of this property was good.

Below are some pics of the property. You can see the original roofline on either side of the "pop top".

Bruce Breedlove · #2 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 04:48 PM

The boiler was patented in 1904. The sink in the basement is made of soapstone and had a nameplate that read "Alberene Stone". (Unfortunately the stone sink was cracked and leaks.)

Thom Walker · #3 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 04:52 PM

Cool cool place.

Have you ever moved one of those sinks? I did. Once. OMG! The pain.

Bruce Breedlove · #4 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 05:03 PM

Abe Lincoln would have been comfortable in this huge tub in the upper level bathroom. It measured 77" long, 33" wide, 19 1/2" deep and was 30" high. The Leonard Model B10 Thermostat Mixing Valve was patented Dec. 11, 1923 and actually works. This was all obviously salvaged out of a house and put back to use in this "pop top" conversion.

Jerry Peck · #5 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

Abe Lincoln would have been comfortable in this huge tub in the upper level bathroom.

Bruce,

You forgot one very important thingy (technical term) ...

Old Abe would have had one huge headache if he used that tub.

NO WAY is there anywhere near enough headroom over the head of that tub.

Can you say SMACKAROO?

Bruce Breedlove · #6 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 06:10 PM

Abe already had a heck of a headache as I recall.

Good point, though. This bathroom was originally attic space so a bump on the head getting in and out of the tub is a small price to pay for having a nice, useable space.

wayne soper · #7 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 06:54 PM

Bruce, Yes it's nice to see that someone occasionally puts as much effort into a renovation as we generally put into our inspections. Looks like a craftsman where the pitch was raised to take the dormer out of play. Nice!

Jerry Peck · #8 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 08:42 PM

Bruce,

Before you call that a "bathroom" and comment about too much in it, review this section in the IRC:
- SECTION R305

- - CEILING HEIGHT

- - - R305.1 Minimum height. Habitable rooms, hallways, corridors, bathrooms, toilet rooms, laundry rooms and basements shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm). The required height shall be measured from the finish floor to the lowest projection from the ceiling.

And this Exception:
- - - - 4. Bathrooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of 6 feet 8 inches (2036 mm) over the fixture and at the front clearance area for fixtures as shown in Figure R307.1. A shower or tub equipped with a showerhead
shall have a minimum ceiling height of 6 feet 8 inches (2036 mm) above a minimum area 30 inches (762 mm) by 30 inches (762 mm) at the showerhead.

Michael Thomas · #9 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 08:08 AM

I don't know if you see a lot of these, sound like you may not. When you see this, look closely for ridge and/or decking sag or other evidence of roof problems, at least around here they usually rotate the existing rafters upwards and place an exterior wall below, but don't provided sufficient (if any) additional support to the radically modified room structure, for example the joists may now be undersized for the lower pitch, collar ties may have been removed, etc.

Bruce Breedlove · #10 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 07:50 PM

Jerry,

I don't think the IRC would apply here. The zoning was changed to Commercial when the house was converted to office space.

Michael,

The rear rafters are new. (See pic in original post.). I did not see any ridge or rafter sagging. There were a few roof leaks though (verified with infrared camera). Open seams. Improper flashing at ridge. Improperly flashed skylight. Improperly flashed plumbing vent.

Jerry Peck · #11 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 08:04 PM

Bruce,

The building code does not care what it is zoned as, it cares what it is built as.

If it is built as, being used as, a single family dwelling, then the IRC should apply.

But, if it is built as, being used as, something else ...

From the IBC.
- 1208.2 Minimum ceiling heights.

Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches (2286 mm). Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall be permitted to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm).

From your photo, though, I suspect the IRC would apply.

Bruce Breedlove · #12 (**permalink**) 05-30-2007, 08:29 PM

No argument from me. As usual, I defer to you.

Jerry Peck · #13 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 12:38 PM

Bruce,

What I was pointing out was, if they used the IBC instead of the IRC, they have to have 7 feet ceiling in the bathroom instead of 6 feet 8 inches over the fixtures.

It is to their advantage to use the IRC.

Either way, though, I would be careful about referring to that bathroom as a "bathroom", once you eliminate the tub area with the low sloping ceiling, you 'might have' a half bath, depending on other conditions.

Bruce Breedlove · #14 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 01:07 PM

Jerry,

The local building code was based on the UBC when this conversion was made. Now it is based on the IRC.

Jerry Peck · #15 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

The local building code was based on the UBC when this conversion was made.

What are/were the UBC code requirements for ceiling heights in bathrooms and/or over fixtures?

Bruce Breedlove · #16 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 07:29 PM

I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure I could look it up in my old code books but, like most home inspectors, I don't inspect for code compliance so it is not a huge concern for me.

Should it be? I sure would hate to have to inspect for code compliance, especially for codes that have changed throughout the years.

Thom Walker · #17 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 09:02 PM

I say screw it. Let them know what the ceiling should be and move on. That's one cool bath and I sure hope nobody messes with it. Did you get pictures of the rest of it?
I'm usually pretty good at dating appliances and fixtures, but that tub has me stumped. I'll let you know if I find out any more about it.

Jerry Peck · #18 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure I could look it up in my old code books but, like most home inspectors, I don't inspect for code compliance so it is not a huge concern for me.

Should it be? I sure would hate to have to inspect for code compliance, especially for codes that have changed throughout the years.