Appeal 33552
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered - RECONSIDERATION OF 33536
Appeal ID: 33552
Submission Date: 10/29/24 3:00 PM
Hearing Date: 11/6/24
Case #: B-003
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Maks Mini Mart
Appeal Involves: Erection of a new structure,Alteration of an existing structure,Reconsideration of appeal
Proposed use: Trash-recycle structure
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | Table 705.5 & Table 705.8 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Table 705.5 requires 1 hour wall at exterior wall of a structure that is less than 5 feet from the property line. Table 705.8 does not permit openings in a wall 3 feet or less from the property line. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | We are requesting that no new 1 hour wall be required at west edge of trash structure that abuts the west property line. We will not be providing any openings as we are not proposing any new wall. We will be utilizing an existing concrete retaining wall instead for our wall. |
| Proposed Design | This Building Code Appeal is being required due an onsite meeting with officials from BDS and the Fire Marshal in mid September, 2024. To better understand the context of this requested Building Code Appeal, please refer to A/A1 for overall view of the Site Plan, B/A1 for North Elevation of trash enclosure, A/A2 for enlarged Trash Enclosure Plan & B/A2 for Section at Structure & Property Line. Sheets A1 & A2 are attached to this application which has these details. This trash-recycle structure was recently built as part of a new Food Pod project. The trash-recycle structure is located at existing west property line of subject property (1951 SW 6th Ave). At the adjacent property to the west (1948 SW Broadway), there is an existing 8” thick & 10’-6” tall concrete retaining wall. The east face of retaining wall abuts the common property line between the two properties. The new trash-recycle structure at its west side essentially abuts the east edge of the 8” thick concrete retainer wall. We are proposing that the existing concrete retaining wall serve as the required 1 hour wall for our alternate design. No openings are being proposed as our intention is to utilize this existing concrete wall to address the 1 hour wall requirement. There is no requirement for a rated roof for this structure due to the separation we have from the adjacent building. The adjacent building at 1948 SW Broadway, its nearest wall plane is located 18 feet away. This is over 15 feet threshold that allows the roof to be non-rated. However, we are proposing adding a 5/8” thick layer of exterior type X gypsum board to the underside of the roof rafters as part of our alternate design for creating additional fire protection. |
| Reason for alternative | The new structure was built by Owner with the understanding that we had received approved plans from BDS for the Food Pod project. However, later after the completion of the structure, it was learned that trash-recycle structure was not officially approved set by BDS for the Food Pod project. BDS is requiring a separate Building Permit for this already built Trash-recycle structure. So for this reason we are requesting this alternate be approved to remedy this issue and to show sufficient (alternate) protection at the west edge of trash-recycle structure. The existing retainer 8” solid concrete wall, which is taller than our new structure, will serve to meet the minimum 1 hour code requirement. We believe that this proposed alternative will provide greater protection than what the OSSC dictates in Table 705.5. RECONSIDERATION TEXT The two requested letters are attached. One from the Owner and the other from adjacent neighbor PSU |
Appeal Decision
Allow the existing concrete wall on the adjacent property to serve as the fire-resistance-rated exterior wall for a trash enclosure: 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 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.