Appeal 34895
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 34895
Submission Date: 7/9/25 5:38 PM
Hearing Date: 7/16/25
Case #: B-2
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Woodstock Apartments
Appeal Involves: Erection of a new structure
Proposed use: Apartments
Project Address: 5117 SE Woodstock Blvd
Appellant Name: Kendra Duong
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-019455 -CO
Stories: 4 Occupancy: R-2 Construction Type: VA
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - throughout
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Radkey-Butts
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | 705.8 |
|---|---|
| Requires | For a fire separation distance of 5 to less than 10’, Table 705.8 allows 25% openings for unprotected openings in a building sprinklered per OSSC 903.3.1.1 (NFPA 13). |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The south facing first floor of the proposed building includes 13% door and window openings, but an additional 24% opening at a recessed egress court provided at the back of the building. Only 25% openings are allowed at 6' from the property line. |
| Proposed Design | There are two common exits that serve 10 dwelling units, and one of these is accessed through the recessed egress court. We propose to protect the two abutting walls, the ceiling, and the structural corner post of the recessed egress court with two-hour fire rated construction. Note that there is an egress court along the south side of the building and that the windows and doors will be 45-minute rated. The only opening into the building in the egress court is the exit door. The building is proposed to be sprinklered with a type 13 system. Two sprinkler heads are proposed in the recessed egress court. The recessed area is provided to meet a zoning code requirement for outdoor space, and to accomodate a drywell as required for stormwater management. |
| Reason for alternative | The proposed two hour construction exceeds the one hour required for egress courts and the building construction type, and will therefore provide equivalent protection for the recessed egress court. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | 1014.6 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Handrails shall extend horizontally not less than 12” beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | At the third floor we propose to turn the handrail extension 90” to the top tread at both exit stairs. |
| Proposed Design | The stairs are spaced as far apart as possible given the step down in height at the rear of the building as required by the zoning code, and at the front of the building due to the proximity to a power line. The stairs currently meet the requirement for separation, and rise and run as required by the floor-to-floor height. However, the top landing is pinched and the 12” extension could be a safety hazard for persons headed down the stairs. In addition at the rear exit, the handrail extension would overlap the roof access ladder. Note that this only occurs at the third floor, and in only two locations in the building, and would be regularly accessed by only 6 dwelling units. |
| Reason for alternative | The handrail extensions will still be present, but by turning them 90 degrees, greater safety and usability is achieved for both resident access and fire department roof access. |
Appeal Decision
"Item 1. Increase in allowable area of exterior wall openings on the east side with 2-hour fire protection, 45-min opening protection, and two sprinkler heads: Granted as proposed.
Item 2. Handrail extension turned 90 degrees on one side of top landing to non-accessible floor: Granted as proposed.
Note: By building code definition, a ""court"" must be an open, uncovered space. The area in the back under the second floor may be used as part of the exit discharge per 1028.2 exception 1 as long as the front interior exit stair continues to discharge directly to the exterior. However, please revise permit drawings to replace the term ""court"" for any covered areas. To be confirmed during plan review.
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.