Appeal 33598

Appeal Summary

Status: Decision Rendered

Appeal ID: 33598

Submission Date: 12/3/24 2:18 PM

Hearing Date: 12/11/24

Case #: B-003

Appeal Type: Building

Project Type: commercial

Building/Business Name: 900 SE Sandy

Appeal Involves: Erection of a new structure

Proposed use: Group R-2 (Primary), A-3, S-2

Project Address: 980 SE Sandy Blvd

Appellant Name: Ryan Miyahira

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 22-214309-CO

Stories: 12 Occupancy: R-2 Construction Type: IV-B

Fire Sprinklers: Yes - Fully Sprinklered

Plans Examiner/Inspector: John Cooly (Building), Alice Johnson (Fire)

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]   [File 2]

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

2022 OSSC Section 703.2

Requires

Per OSSC Table 601, primary structural framing as well as floors and associated secondary members of Type IV-B construction are required to have a fire resistance rating (FRR) of not less than 2 hours. The CLT floor/ceiling assembly is proposed to be 2-hr rated. Per OSSC 722.1, the fire resistance of exposed wood elements may be calculated in accordance with Chapter 16 of AWC NDS – 2018.
In addition, the steel beam supporting the CLT floor/ceiling assembly at the balcony is proposed to be protected by gypsum wallboard as shown in the attached engineering judgement.
Per OSSC 602.4.3.5, combustible construction in concealed spaces must be protected with noncombustible
protection. Per OSSC Table 722.7.1(1), where noncombustible protection is required, it must provide 80 minutes of protection for elements that require a 2-hour rating.
Per OSSC 703.3.2.2(4), the required fire resistance of a building element, component or assembly shall be permitted to be established by engineering analysis based on a comparison of building element, component or assemblies designs having fire-resistance ratings as determined by the test procedures set forth on ASTM E119 or UL 263.

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

To allow the protection of steel beams on the balcony in conformance with the attached engineering judgement in the absence of a tested/listed system. The tested/listed system of UL N501 (attached) has been considered the basis for this engineering judgement in order to provide an appropriate level of fire protection.

Proposed Design

Please refer to the attached engineering judgement for a description of the assembly.

Reason for alternative

This alternate is required because a tested/listed assembly for this condition has not been identified. Please refer to the attached engineering judgement for an assessment of equivalency of the proposed assembly to a similar tested/listed assembly.

Appeal Decision

Alternate 2-hour fire assembly for beams per engineered analysis: Granted as proposed.

"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 the 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.