Appeal 33603
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 33603
Submission Date: 12/4/24 5:17 PM
Hearing Date: 12/11/24
Case #: B-007
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Grace Peck Terrace
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure,Reconsideration of appeal,occ Change from to ,other:
Proposed use: Mixed Use Residential
Project Address: 1839 NE 14th Ave
Appellant Name: Joshua Richards
LUR or Permit Application #: Other
Stories: 6 Occupancy: A-3, B, R2 Construction Type: I-B
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - Throughout
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Kevin White
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2] [File 3] [File 4] [File 5] [File 6]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | Section 13.4 of ASCE 7-16 |
|---|---|
| Requires | NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT ANCHORAGE |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The roof at the Grace Peck building is an existing modified SBS flat roof with a proposed PV solar array which requires servicing at times. The proposed counterweighted (ballasted) guardrail provides protection to personnel for servicing this equipment that is within 10’ of the edge of the roof. |
| Proposed Design | The existing roof of the Grace Peck building is a flat roof sloped only for drainage, see Appendix D. The roof is a modified SBS roof system that would create a potential water intrusion problem if the existing roof were partially pulled back for the mounting. |
| Reason for alternative | The Grace Peck building is six stories tall with an existing modified SBS roof. There will be a ballasted new solar array, see Appendix - E, which is compliant with and permitted by ASCE 7-16 §13.6.12. The guardrail system will provide safe access to service the new solar array and is designed with 47 stanchions which provide the required 200 lbs. live-load support (see attached reports). |
Appeal Decision
Allow ballasted guardrail connection instead of positively fastened guardrail: 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.