Appeal 11343
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 11343
Submission Date: 11/23/14 2:46 PM
Hearing Date: 11/26/14
Case #: B-013
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: 419 E Burnside Mixed Use
Appeal Involves: Erection of a new structure
Proposed use: Mixed-Use (Commercial/Retail/Residential)
Project Address: 419 E Burnside St
Appellant Name: Erik Winter
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 14-216353-FND-01-CO
Stories: 6 Occupancy: R-2, A, S-2, B Construction Type: II-B over I-A
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - NFPA 13 throughout
Plans Examiner/Inspector: David Jones
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2] [File 3]
Payment Option: mail
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
Code Section | OSSC Table 503 |
---|---|
Requires | Table 503 states that Group A occupancies in Type IIIB construction may not be located higher than 3 stories (4 stories with the sprinkler increase per OSSC Section 504.2). |
Code Modification or Alternate Requested | |
Proposed Design | The proposed design would include an occupied roof terrace at the southeast corner of the roof (assumes 15 occupants per sq. ft. per the building official direction during preliminary life safety meetings on February 28, 2014 and June 2, 2014) and an urban garden at the southwest corner of the roof (300 occupants per sq. ft. per the building official direction during preliminary life safety meetings on February 28, 2014 and June 2, 2014) over the sixth story. The total combined number of occupants of the common amenities will be limited to 49 occupants, the maximum number of occupants for spaces with one (1) exit. Per OSSC Section 303, Exception 3, these areas may be classified as a Group B occupancy. Per OSSC Table 503, under Type IIIB construction Group B is allowed in buildings of 5 stories and 65 feet in height; this can be increased to 6-stories and 85-feet using the sprinkler increase provision referenced in OSSC section 504.2. Because both the roof terrace and urban garden areas are open-air and not enclosed (and therefore by definition not a story), the group B use would be allowed at that height. The proposal includes the following components:
|
Reason for alternative | Our alternate proposal is submitted per the request of the building official (David Jones). The alternate proposal provides amenities that make the project financially feasible and marketable, addresses required Design Review criteria, also improving the lifestyle of the future tenants by taking opportunities on the roof for daylight, views, open-air, and community space. The open-air and unobstructed nature of the roof terrace will allow any smoke (if occurs) to dissipate immediately. The private-personal roof/ deck patios are independent from the common roof spaces and accessible only through the private and internal stair case within the associated dwelling unit. This condition is similar to a mezzanine, but safer because it is open air and instead of a floor-ceiling condition, uses a substantial and rated roof-ceiling system with concrete pavers as the finished surface. The common roof amenity spaces (urban garden at the southwest corner of the roof and the terrace at the southeast corner of the roof) combined require only one exit based on square footage and occupant load alone. Three approved means of egress will be provided. These two amenities are separate and clearly defined areas. Both areas are accessible via a common outdoor, open-air, non-combustible path. Non-combustible materials are utilized in the finished surfaces (e.g., trellises, planters and railing systems). Immovable raised planters, metal guard rails, and mechanical screens provide fall protection for occupants (top of rail/ wall will be 42” AFF minimum) as well as keeping occupants within defined and designated areas. |
Appeal item 2
Code Section | Oregon Fire Code Section 308.3 |
---|---|
Requires | OFC 308.3 states “Open flame devices shall not be used in a Group A occupancy.” |
Code Modification or Alternate Requested | |
Proposed Design | The proposal includes a natural gas fire pit and barbeque at the rooftop terrace above the sixth story of a fully sprinklered (NFPA 13) Type IIIB over Type IA, 5-over-1 story, and mixed-use apartment building. The proposed rooftop terrace is less than 750 square feet in area; per OSSC section 303.1 Exception A, may be classified as a B occupancy (instead of A). The fire pit will be UL approved. It is located 12’-0” (+/-) away from the path of and sits atop a non-combustible concrete paver & pedestal system that sits atop a 1-hour rated roof/ ceiling assembly. The proposal includes the following safeguards that have been approved on other similar projects in the City of Portland:
The proposed barbeque appliance would be supplied by piping within the void under the decking and above the 1-hour rated roof/ ceiling assembly. There is a 2-hour rated assembly between the path of egress and the back face of the barbecue appliance. In the event of a fire, the roof deck and urban garden can be served via fire apparatus from E. Burnside Street and is within 75’ of the lowest required fire aerial apparatus setup point. See attached roof plan for fire pit and barbecue locations. |
Reason for alternative | The alternate is required in order to provide an amenity for the residents that is not only enjoyable, but safe and controlled. The warmth of a real fire and access to a barbecue is safeguarded by the above-listed prescriptive path that has previously been developed and approved on other similar projects in the City of Portland. Since the rooftop terrace is also less than 750 square feet in area, it may be classified as a B use instead of an A use per OSSC 303.1. Our understanding is that open flame devices would be allowed as proposed and is not restricted by Oregon Fire Code section 308.3. We are submitting the alternate to verify the authority having jurisdiction concurs. |
Appeal item 3
Code Section | OSSC 3202.1.1, 3202.2.2.2, 3202.3.1 |
---|---|
Requires | OSSC Section 3202.1.1. states, “Structural support. A part of the building erected below grade that is necessary for structural support of the building or structure shall not project beyond the lot lines, except that the footings of street walls or their supports which are located at least 8 feet below grade shall not project more than 12 inches beyond the street lot line.” OSSC Section 3202.2.2.2. states, “Architectural features. Columns or pilasters, including bases and moldings shall not project more than 12 inches. Belt courses, lintels, sills, architraves, pediments and similar architecture features shall not project more than 4 inches. OSSC Section 3202.3.1 states, “Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs. Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs shall be constructed so as to support the applicable loads as specified in Chapter 16. Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs with less than 15 feet clearance above the sidewalk shall not extend into or occupy more than two-thirds the width of the sidewalk measured from the building. Stanchions or columns that support awnings, canopies, and signs shall be located not less than 2 feet in from the curb line.” OSSC 3202.3.2. states, “Windows, balconies, architectural features and mechanical equipment. Where the vertical clearance above grade to projecting windows, balconies, architectural features or mechanical equipment is more than 8 feet, 1 inch of encroachment is permitted for each additional 1 inch of clearance above 8 feet, but the maximum encroachment shall be 4 feet.” |
Code Modification or Alternate Requested | |
Proposed Design | Proposed Design: (Describe the alternate methods or materials of construction to be used or that exist. Be as specific as possible) The applicant is proposing a full-block arcade along E Burnside Street. Eight (8) 16” x 28” (+/-) structural columns are proposed to support the full-block arcade, encroaching approximately 16’-6” into the public way, as measured from the property line to the outside column face furthest from the property line. Per PBOT’s request, the columns have been located as close to the backside of the E Burnside Street curb as possible. The footings for the associated arcade columns will be design such that they will not encroach beyond the line of the curb and the roadway. The height of the columns vary due to the sloped site, ranging from 13’-6” (+/-) to 17’-10” (+/-) in height as measured from the sidewalk. This allows for a 13’-4” (+/-) clear width as measured from the property line to the closest inside column face to the property line. The proposed 18’-0” pedestrian sidewalk corridor is comprised of the standard 1’-6” retail frontage zone, a 10’-0” sidewalk, a 6’-0” furnishing zone, and a standard 6” curb. The ground level portion of the arcade will be constructed using Type IA non-combustible construction (concrete) up to and including the second floor slab (a 14-inch post tensioned concrete slab), which will extend over the E Burnside ROW (e.g., sidewalk), supporting the upper floors. The five upper floors will be constructed using Type IIIB wood framed construction with unprotected, sprinklered vinyl window openings. The exterior walls are clad primarily in metal panel. |
Reason for alternative | Reason for Alternate: (Describe why the alternate is required and how it will provide equivalent health, accessibility, structural capacity, energy conservation, life safety or fire protection to what the code requires). The reason for the alternate is to provide a full-block arcade, in response to BDS Design Review Staff’s and Design Commission’s recommendation. The arcade will allow for the historic character already present along E Burnside Street to remain, as stated in (and allowed) in the Central Eastside Design Guidelines (Guideline 5-1). In addition to contributing to the overall contextual character of E Burnside street, the arcade will provide continuous weather protection for pedestrians at street level. The applicant is aware that the full-block arcade is subject to both Design Commission approval and a Major Encroachment review, both of which have been submitted and are currently under review. The applicant has received verbal support of the arcade element from both the Design Commission (DR Hearing No. 1), BDS Design Review Staff and PBOT to date, with PBOT (Fabio de Freitas and Kurt Krueger) indicating they intend to recommend approval of the major encroachment. The arcade is also required to make the project financially feasible. The project team has begun negotiating with PBOT (David McEldowney) regarding the terms and conditions associated with the major encroachment lease. The OSSC does not speak directly towards an arcade condition, which is why an appeal has been requested by the plans examiner assigned to the project (David Jones). Equivalent fire- and life-safety is as follows:
Exhibits:
B. Proposed Enlarged Arcade Plan |
Appeal Decision
1. B occupancy roof deck located above the 5th story of the IIIB portion of the building: Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalent fire and life safety.
2. Gas Burning Open flame Appliance on roof deck: Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalent fire safety.
3. Building projection and structural supports located in the public right of way: Granted provided columns are supplied with impact protection per OSSC 704.9, and encroachment is approved by PBOT.
Appellant may contact David Jones (503-823-7028) for additional information.
The Administrative Appeal Board finds that for the item granted, the information submitted by the appellant demonstrates that the approved modifications or alternate methods are consistent with the intent of the code; do not lessen health, safety, accessibility, life, fire safety or structural requirements; and that special conditions unique to this project make strict application of those code sections impractical.