Appeal 32390

Appeal Summary

Status: Decision Rendered 32352 FROM (6/20/24) FOR MORE INFO.

Appeal ID: 32390

Submission Date: 7/9/24 9:05 AM

Hearing Date: 7/17/24

Case #: B-002

Appeal Type: Building

Project Type: LUR

Building/Business Name:

Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal,other: existing 4-plex on site of proposed 2-lot partition

Proposed use: 4-plex

Project Address: 7537-7541 N Heppner

Appellant Name: Emily Sandy

LUR or Permit Application #: LUR 23-098213

Stories: 2 Occupancy: R2 Construction Type: V

Fire Sprinklers: No

Plans Examiner/Inspector: Geoff Harker

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

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

OSSC 705.5 and 705.8

Requires

Tables 705.5 and 705.8 of the 2022 OSSC require a minimum separation distance of 10-feet for a wall with no openings. The proposed property line is 5-feet away from the existing building wall. Eaves project 14”.

The site has a land division partition under review (LU 23-098213 LDP). There is an existing 4 plex (original permit 444931, 1968) to remain. Though not part of the partition review, a new building built to townhouse code is proposed on the vacant lot. See attached existing and proposed site plan. In order for the partition to be approved, the existing 4-plex must comply with applicable building code regulations that are triggered by placement of the new property line.

The existing building was permitted as Type V Construction. The building is not sprinklered. Fire rating is not clear without exploration of the constructed building, so it is assumed there is no fire rated exterior walls. Permit 444931 includes a cross section that shows 1/2" gypsum board on the interior and 5/8" T1-11 vertical siding which would also indicate no fire resistance rating.

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Reconsideration of Appeal #1.

In lieu of providing 10-feet from the existing 4 plex to the real property line, a 5-foot “No build easement” is proposed on the opposite side of the proposed property line for a total separation distance of 10 feet.

Proposed Design

Alternate method: In lieu of providing 10-feet from the existing 4 plex to the real property line, a 5-foot “No build easement” is proposed on the opposite side of the proposed property line for a total separation distance of 10 feet. See submitted existing and proposed site plan. The no build easement will ensure a separation of 10 feet from the existing building wall to the new building wall, and adequate distance for eave projections as allowed by 705.2.3. Construction of the new townhouses on vacant lot would will meet the requirements of 2023 ORSC Table R302.1., based on the implied property line of the boundary of the no-build easement.

If the new townhouses are constructed up to the implied property line (the edge of the no-build easement) ORSC Table R302.1. includes no allowances for openings or eaves abutting the implied property line.

Reason for alternative

The no build easement will ensure a separation of 10 feet from the existing buildng wall to the new building wall, and adequate distance for eave projections as allowed by 705.2.3, meeting equivalency requirements for the appeal. Construction of the new townhouses on vacant lot will meet the requirements of 2023 ORSC Table R302.1., based on the implied property line of the boundary of the no-build easement. This will meet the code outright.

Appeal Decision

"Omission of fire-rated construction within 5 feet of the property line with 5 foot no build easement: Granted as proposed.
The appellant must contact Jody Orrison (jody.orrison@portlandoregon.gov) for more information before writing the no-build easement.
The easement must include language that establishes the edge of the easement on the adjacent lot as the implied property line to determine fire separation distance for future development on the adjoining lot.
The unrecorded easement must be reviewed and approved by BDS before recording. A copy of the recorded easement must be provided to BDS before the approval of the 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 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.

Pursuant to City Code Chapter 24.10, you may appeal this decision to the Building Code Board of Appeal within 90 calendar days of the date this decision is published. For information on the appeals process, go to www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/appealsinfo, call (503) 823-6251 or come to the Development Services Center."