Appeal 33434

Appeal Summary

Status: Pending

Appeal ID: 33434

Submission Date: 8/23/24 11:18 AM

Hearing Date: 9/4/24

Case #: B-001

Appeal Type: Building

Project Type: commercial

Building/Business Name:

Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal

Proposed use: Daycare within existing College

Project Address: 1632 SE 11th Ave

Appellant Name: Nate Ember

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-013420-CO

Stories: 2 Occupancy: B, E Construction Type: VB

Fire Sprinklers: Yes - full NFPA 13

Plans Examiner/Inspector: Chanel Horn

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

Title 24.85.040 (table 24.85A)

Requires

The [following] table shall be used to classify the relative hazard of all building occupancies.

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Requesting the use of the occupancy calculations as of the year 2005 when the building was fully retrofitted to meet the 2004 Oregon Structural Specialty Code as the baseline in lieu of October 1, 2004 when determining seismic upgrade triggers per Title 24.85.040

Proposed Design

The existing building is a 1951 two-story, wood and concrete shear wall building which received a full seismic upgrade in 2005 in accordance with the 2003 International Building code and 2004 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. This seismic upgrade was triggered by Change of Occupancy requirements of Title 24.85 in 2005, due to a change in occupancy of over 1/3 the floor area and an increase in occupant load count of over 149.

The proposal is to change occupancy of the building in some areas from B to E occupancy. Under the current Title 24.85, the increase in occupancy in these localized areas triggers a seismic upgrade to ASCE 41-BPON performance standard or Oregon Structural Specialty Code (current Code) due to increase in occupant load greater than 149 compared to the occupant load as of October 1, 2004 . We are proposing that the occupancy as of 2005, when the building underwent a full seismic upgrade to the 2004 OSSC, be used to determine if there are seismic triggers due to change of occupancy.

Reason for alternative

We believe that using the legal occupancy as of 2005 as the baseline in comparing the increase in occupant load or area calculations is appropriate for the following reasons 1) The structure was fully upgraded to meet the 2004 OSSC in 2005. 2) There is no change in risk category. 3) Since a previous occupancy change triggered a seismic upgrade in 2005 and there have been no significant changes in the OSSC, it is our opinion that the previous retrofit would largely meet current requirements in OSSC. In addition, a benchmarking study in accordance with ASCE 41-17 Chapter 3 has also been completed noting no significant hazards, such as liquefaction are present, that the structure is of sound condition, and exposed retrofitted elements from the 2005 scope were observed on site.

The administrative staff has not yet reviewed this appeal.