Appeal 33748
Appeal Summary
Status: DECISION RENDERED
Appeal ID: 33748
Submission Date: 4/2/25 3:13 PM
Hearing Date: 4/9/25
Case #: B-004
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: EAST PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure
Proposed use: B
Project Address: 737 SE 106TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97216
Appellant Name: SHERRY ALIBERTI
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-021851-FA
Stories: 2 Occupancy: B Construction Type: VB
Fire Sprinklers: Yes -
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Lisa Buellesbach
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2]
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 | Work proposed for East Precinct Police Bureau is primarily for replacing the roof assembly on the existing building - but the City of Portland (owner) also wanted to improve maintenance staff safety on the roof with the addition of OSHA compliant railings - both mechanically fastened where cost effective and ballasted railings at very limited locations. |
| Proposed Design | The existing CMU and brick veneer walls were designed with a mix of low to medium height parapet walls at the flat roofs. The ballasted railings are proposed to provide OSHA-required fall protection at 42” high at existing parapet wall locations only where the wall is less than 20”. Mechanically-attached OSHA railings are proposed where existing parapet walls are 20” tall, as noted on plan. Equivalent protection is provided by the ballasted railing system that is tested to meet the requirements for personal safety per OSSC 1607.9.1 per attached report. The counterweighted railing system is to be publicly bid with the complete scope therefore the product test results are provided for reference and will be procured with this manufacturer or an approved equal. |
| Reason for alternative | The existing CMU and brick veneer exterior walls would require complicated structural upgrades in order to provide 42” tall parapet walls or to mechanically-attach OSHA railings in all locations. We have limited the ballasted railings to only the areas that would require more complicated modifications to the existing building. |
Appeal Decision
Allow a ballasted guard rail system in lieu of a physically attached system: 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.