Appeal 33458
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered OVER 32103 FROM (1/31/24) FOR MORE INFO*
Appeal ID: 33458
Submission Date: 9/4/24 5:13 PM
Hearing Date: 9/11/24
Case #: B-004
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) South Marquam Maintenance Facility Yards
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure,Reconsideration of appeal
Proposed use: Storage for Grounds Maintenance
Project Address: 820 and 830 SW Gaines St
Appellant Name: Tom Jaleski
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit EA-23-021714
Stories: 1 Occupancy: S-1 Construction Type: V-B
Fire Sprinklers: No
Plans Examiner/Inspector: N/A
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2] [File 3] [File 4] [File 5] [File 6] [File 7]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | OSSC §102.6 and §1604.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | §102.6: The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as otherwise specifically provided in this code. §1604.1: Building, structures and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters and referenced standards. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The South Marquam Maintenance Facility Yards Building 2 Cluster 1 includes a collection of existing structures which predate the current BDS permit process. This appeal request is for the existing non-permitted structures to be permitted with partial structural upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the structural requirements of new construction. |
| Proposed Design | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): Attachment F is the seismic evaluation of Structure 2-1 provided by KPFF that further expands on the justification of the proposed design and protections provided. The proposed partial seismic upgrade to the roof aligns with the findings and recommendations of the structural report. --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): The proposed design is for all buildings to remain as-is based on them being unaltered from their original construction, though only structure 2-4 was permitted. Equivalent protection for these structures is provided as follows: Equivalent protection for all structures is provided by use of the structures: these are not open to the public, only structures 2-1 and 2-4 are regularly occupied, and all occupants are trained staff in emergency operations. These buildings are not being altered in any way from their original construction. The new structure added to his collection of buildings will meet all the requirements of the applicable code at time of permitting. RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): Building 2 includes the following collection of structures:
EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE:
NEW STRUCTURE:
The existing structures do not meet current seismic design requirements of ASCE 7-16. The existing structures do meet the intent of City Code Chapter 24.85.010 Scope Section A to not require seismic upgrades, though many of the structures were not previously permitted. |
| Reason for alternative | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): This appeal is requesting existing non-conforming requirements regarding the OSSC §1604.1 requirement for buildings and structures to be designed for structural resilience of the current code cycle. As the existing buildings greatly predate current code, upgrading the structures to meet modern structural requirements would be technically unfeasible. Equivalent performance-based protection is provided to Structure 2-1 and 2-2 by providing updates recommended by the seismic evaluation documented in Attachment F. The evaluation follows the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. This standard provides deficiency-based, systematic procedures for structural improvements and retrofits, offering an industry-recognized performance-based approach for the proposed improvements. Structure 2-3 will be addressed separately, with new wind uplift anchoring to improve the design response to wind loads. The structures of Building 2 Cluster 1, as described in this appeal, are proposed with feasible improvements based on the use and type of structure. These structures are not otherwise being altered from their original construction. Therefore, based on the proposed improvements to the existing structures, we request that the structures be allowed to be permitted with partial structural upgrades as described. --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): Structures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5 are not undergoing a change of use/occupancy, addition or repair. The structures will continue to be used as storage and maintenance shop structures. Structures 2-3 and 2-5 are covered, unconditioned storage, open to the exterior, and will remain unoccupied except when maintenance employees are actively accessing or storing equipment. Structure 2-2 is an unconditioned space and not undergoing change of use/occupancy from its original construction in 1952. Any future alterations will be reviewed to meet the requirements of the applicable IEBC and city codes to ensure that life safety is being provided as required at the time of renovation. When all structures are considered as a single building for building code compliance, as permitted by OSSC §503.1.2, Building 2 has a total calculated occupant load of 30 occupants, which is significantly less than the 149 occupant load increase allowed without seismic improvements by City Code Chapter 24.85.040. Therefore, not requiring seismic upgrades provides equivalent protection to what is currently allowed by City Code. Though these structures, except structure 2-4, were not originally permitted, they are closed to the public and occupied by only a few personnel. Structures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5, in particular, are only accessed for the purpose of retrieving or depositing stored items by employees who are familiar with the space and emergency procedures; therefore equivalent protection is provided to the City Code and IBC requirements as the existing structures are not being altered. RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): If existing structures in Building 2 had been previously permitted, it would not be required to be seismically upgraded to meet current code criteria under City Code Chapter 24.85. Per Chapter 24.85.010 Scope Section A, the provisions of this city code chapter prescribe requirements for “existing buildings undergoing changes of occupancy, additions, alterations, catastrophic damage, fire, or earthquake repair, or mandatory or voluntary seismic strengthening.” The building is not undergoing a change of function, therefore, the intended scope of Chapter 24.85 seismic design requirements for existing buildings do not apply to the existing structures building if they had been permitted at the time of construction. Since the permitting process did not exist at the time of construction, we request that this subsequent permit not be held to the requirements of new construction for seismic design. The structures have minimal impact to the function of the overall OHSU hospital facility: Therefore, we request that the intent of Chapter 24.85.010 Scope Section A apply and that seismic upgrades not be required for existing structures of Building 2 even though some of the existing structures had not been previously permitted. The new structure in Building 2 will meet all current seismic requirements prescriptively. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | OSSC §3401.3.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose, in accordance with the code in existence at the time of its completion, shall be permitted to comply with the provisions of the code in existence at the time of its original permit unless such permit has expired. Subsequent permits shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The South Marquam Maintenance Facility Yards Building 2 Cluster 1 includes a collection of existing structures which predate the current BDS permit process. This appeal request is to follow the intent of OSSC §3403.6.3 for existing buildings even though they were previously unpermitted through BDS. Accessible restrooms are provided within 300’ of the Cluster, but not on an accessible route. |
| Proposed Design | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): The proposed design is for all buildings to remain as-is based on them being unaltered from their original construction, without accessibility upgrades. As existing, structures are not on an accessible route from public ROW and the driveway is unpaved. Equivalent protection for these structures is based on OSSC 3403.6.7 for alterations which states the limit for accessibility is based on technical feasibility. Additional accessibility will be provided for all structures, but mainly for Building 2, it is within 300’ of accessible restrooms in the Energy Management Center (see Attachment G), accessible restrooms can be reached via vehicular access, and OHSU can provide an availability of positions, either permanent or temporary, within an area that is accessible. The space is not open to the public and for use by maintenance personnel only. --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): The proposed design is for all buildings to remain as-is based on them being unaltered from their original construction: structures are not on an accessible route from public ROW, the driveway being unpaved, and the space not being open to the public and used by maintenance personnel only. Equivalent protection for these structures is provided in that all structures of Building 2 will remain within 300’ of accessible restrooms in the Energy Management Center, and OHSU providing availability of positions, either permanent or temporary, within an area that is accessible. RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): Building 2 includes the following collection of structures:
EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE:
NEW STRUCTURE:
The existing structures do not meet current accessibility requirements of OSSC Chapter 11, but do meet the intent of OSSC Chapter 34 for existing buildings even though four structures were not previously permitted. Building 2 is not accessible to the public, restricted for OHSU maintenance staff access only. |
| Reason for alternative | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): Locations of Building 2 structures will remain as-is, and so the proposed design does not decrease the accessible access to the accessible restroom facilities, which were not along an accessible grade originally. OHSU will make accommodations for any personnel who may need temporary or permanent position where full accessibility is needed for the person. These 2 conditions for the existing and new structures used by maintenance personnel only meets the intent of the code for providing equivalent accommodation for the position or type of work required. --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): If all structures in Building 2 had been previously permitted, the scope of this project would not be a repair, addition, or change of occupancy. Since the building is not undergoing improvements and the scope of the project does not reduce accessibility of the structure, the project complies with OSSC §3403.6.3 for an existing building. Only authorized OHSU maintenance personnel will be accessing the site. The proposed design will not reduce accessibility of the existing structures, therefore meeting the code intent of OSSC §3403.6.3 for existing buildings. The new Recycling Canopy complies with exclusions for accessible access to and within the structure in accordance with OSSC §1104.3.1 Exception 3 and §1104.2 Exception 1 since access is provided along the vehicular way and not for pedestrian access. Therefore, we request that existing structures of Building 2 be considered as existing for which accessibility upgrades are not be required even though the structures had not been previously permitted. |
Appeal item 3
| Code Section | OSSC §3401.3.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose, in accordance with the code in existence at the time of its completion, shall be permitted to comply with the provisions of the code in existence at the time of its original permit unless such permit has expired. Subsequent permits shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The South Marquam Maintenance Facility Yards Building 2 Cluster 1 includes a collection of existing structures which predate the current BDS permit process, and one new structure. This appeal request is for the existing non-permitted structures to be permitted with partial energy upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the energy requirements of new construction. |
| Proposed Design | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): • Structure 2-1 is a CMU structure without cracks, built in 1952 and is for occupants who are familiar with the small structure with short exit travel distances. No change of use/occupancy or renovations have occurred since original construction. The heated/cooled office portion of this building will be upgraded with a new HVAC system with locally programmable controls. The office window will be replaced with an energy compliant window and attic insulation/venting will be provided. Equivalent protection for all structures is provided by use of the space: these are not open to the public, only structure 2-1 is regularly occupied and conditioned, and there is no increase to proposed energy usage from original construction. The proposed improvements provide greater energy compliance than is currently existing in the structures. --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): The proposed design is for all buildings to remain as-is based on them being unaltered from their original construction, though only structure 2-4 was permitted. Equivalent protection for these structures is provided as follows: Equivalent protection for all structures is provided by use of the space: these are not open to the public, only structures 2-1 and 2-4 are regularly occupied and conditioned, and there is no increase to proposed energy usage from original construction. The new structure added to his collection of buildings will meet all the requirements of the applicable code at time of permitting. RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): Building 2 includes the following collection of structures:
EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE:
NEW STRUCTURE:
The Facilities Maintenance Grounds Shop and the Garage are the only structures which currently have heating and/or cooling elements, which are used on a part-time basis for tasks. These structures are not accessible to the public, restricted for OHSU maintenance staff access only. In lieu of meeting all current code requirements of the OEESC, heating/cooling elements will be on timers to ensure their use is limited. |
| Reason for alternative | RECONSIDERATION TEXT 3 (NEW): --- RECONSIDERATION TEXT 2 (ORIGINAL): RECONSIDERATION TEXT 1 (ORIGINAL): If all structures in Building 2 had been previously permitted, the scope of this project would not be a repair, addition, or change of occupancy. Since the building is not undergoing improvements and the scope of the project does not reduce energy conservation of the structure, the project complies with the intent of OEESC §E103.2 to allow for the continued use of existing buildings. In lieu of meeting all current code requirements of the OEESC as newly permitted structures through BDS, heating/cooling elements will be on timers to ensure their use is limited. This upgrade exceeds the code requirement of OEESC §E103.2 if the structures had been previously permitted through BDS. Therefore, we request that existing structures of Building 2 be considered as existing for which energy code upgrades are not required. |
Appeal Decision
"Building 2, Cluster 1
ITEM 1a. Allow the existing unpermitted Structure 2-1 to be permitted with partial structural upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the structural requirements for new construction: Granted provided the engineer of record verifies there is adequate positive connection between the CMU walls and the foundation to transfer lateral loads and that there is adequate connection between the walls and the roof diaphragm to transfer out of plane loading.
ITEM 1b. Allow the existing unpermitted Structure 2-2 to be permitted with partial structural upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the structural requirements for new construction: Granted as proposed.
ITEM 1c. Allow the existing unpermitted Structure 2-3 to be permitted with partial structural upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the structural requirements for new construction: Granted provided membrane structure is also adequately anchored for horizontal loads from wind at the frame supporting the membrane.
ITEM 2. Allow use of OSSC 3403.6.3 Accessibility for Existing Buildings even through they were previously unpermitted: Granted as proposed.
ITEM 3. Allow existing unpermitted structures to be permitted with partial energy upgrades in lieu of full compliance with the energy requirements for new construction: Granted provided gas heater is removed from Structure 2-2."
"The Administrative Appeal Board finds that 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.
Pursuant to City Code Chapter 24.10, you may appeal this decision to the Building Code Board of Appeal within 90 calendar days of the date this decision is published. For information on the appeals process, go to www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/appealsinfo, call (503) 823-6251 or come to the Development Services Center."