Appeal 35023
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered- Reconsideration of Appeal 35009 (10.22.25)
Appeal ID: 35023
Submission Date: 10/29/25 3:15 PM
Hearing Date: 11/5/25
Case #: B-2
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Planet Fitness
Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal
Proposed use: gym/health club
Project Address: 2650 NE MLK Jr Blvd
Appellant Name: Laura Lewallen
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-044881
Stories: 2 Occupancy: A-3 Construction Type: IIB
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - fully sprinklered NFPA 13
Plans Examiner/Inspector: John Cooley
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | Portland Title 24.85.040 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Seismic upgrades are triggered either if more than 1/3 of the area changes or if more than 149 occupants are added. You need to show that less than 150 occupants are added and that not more than 1/3 of the building area is changing to a higher hazard. If either one of this limits is exceeded a seismic upgrade is triggered. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | 2022 OSSC 1004.5 Areas without fixed seating |
| Proposed Design | The proposed club has 130 different fitness stations and 11 Black Card Space equipment pieces. With an assumption of 5 staff members that would be a total of 146 occupants provided every piece of fitness and spa equipment is in use and all staff members are present in one shift. Furthermore, with an assumption of every plumbing fixture occupied in each locker room (18 fixtures) that would be a total of 164 occupants in a worst-case scenario. Note that the plumbing fixture count will remain at the higher calculated load. The limiting 145 number would be posted as the maximum occupant load but even in worst-case scenario, 164 is still 136 occupants below 300. As an additional means of ensuring the occupant load is tracked and enforced, we propose a third-party automated electronic people-counting system – SMS 3D ScopeII LC Real Time package. This would be specified as a part of construction plans and would have an automated alert set to notify staff if the total count reaches the stated maximum occupant load and that they could not allow any more occupants in the building until other users exit. Thus, we would appeal to keeping this as a Risk Category II building. |
| Reason for alternative | We are writing an appeal for the acceptance of a limited occupancy for the proposed Planet Fitness in Multnomah County which will relieve certain structural requirements under a reduced load. To be able to reduce the scope structurally of the seismic upgrades that have been triggered by the change of use, M to A-3, per Portland title 24.85.040, we would like to limit occupancy to 145. Historically Planet Fitness has never reached over an occupancy of 125. We would further reinforce this occupant limitation with a people counter and signage. Planet Fitness operations does not include any classes that may be found in other gymnasiums or A-3 assemblies. Planet Fitness also possesses large pieces of equipment that take up an adequate amount of floor space that isn't always occupied. The tabulated occupant based solely on 2022 OSSC area size and use is 320 and this AHJ did not accept the reduced occupant load that removed circulation from that calculation that brought us to 297. However, based on our subsequent correspondence with Planet Fitness, the highest count they have witnessed in an operating club is 125 occupants. Statistical data is obtained from Planet Fitness's member check-in system historical records in over 2,600 locations across the U.S. Most Planet Fitness clubs are about 24,000 SF and since this club is 17,400 SF we believe that the average count would be even lower than 125. This is our appeal to historical data. |
Appeal Decision
Calculate lobby at 1 occupant per 150 square feet based on non-simultaneous use: Granted as proposed. Final occupant load of the building 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.