Appeal 33676
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 33676
Submission Date: 1/30/25 7:52 PM
Hearing Date: 2/5/25
Case #: B-004
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: 3825 se 32nd
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure,occ Change from r3 to r2 - 4 plex
Proposed use: 4 plex apartments
Project Address: 3825 se 32nd ave
Appellant Name: dave Spitzer
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-102997-CO
Stories: 3 Occupancy: R2 Construction Type: VB
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - NFPA 13R per this permit
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Reday Radtke Buts
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | table 705.5 |
|---|---|
| Requires | 1 hr rated walls when within 5'-10' of the property line |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | To allow our new fire rated gyp. bd. to be installed just on the inside face of the wall. |
| Proposed Design | We have a SFR that is being converted to a 4 plex - structure has been permitted and built. current permit is for modifying interior layout for 4 units. both our South and North walls are approximately 7' from their respective property lines. All the exterior siding is in great shape. Rather than fire rate the wall from both sides, we would like to keep the exterior siding and install a new layer of 5/8" type 'x' gyp. bd. to the inside face of existing (or new) 1/2" gyp. bd. The new 5/8" type 'x' would be in all the units and also extend to the underside of the roof sheathing at the 3rd floor attic areas. |
| Reason for alternative | The existing siding is in great shape. The interior is being gutted - so much easier to fire rate from the interior. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | 705.11 |
|---|---|
| Requires | parapets on exterior walls that are required to be fire rated. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | We do not want to build a parapet or rate the roof construction as we barely don't qualify for several cumulative exemptions |
| Proposed Design | Per that first appeal - we will construct modified fire rated walls at both exterior walls that are about 7' from the property line. Both of these walls have less than 10% openings per floor. Per 705.11 - ex. 1 - parapets are not required to be constructured when walls are not required to be fire rated per table 705.5. While we are sprinklering to NFPA 13R per this permit - that does not get us any benefit when it comes to exterior wall rating or openings. In addition 705.11 ex 2. - parapets are not required when each floor has less than 1,000 sf. We have three floors - one under 1,000 sf (915) and two over 1,000 (1,296). Both of the 1,296 floors are demised with a 1 hr fire partition to separate units. |
| Reason for alternative | With 7' setbacks, adding a sprinkler system, just being over 1,000 sf per floor, etc - all these are cumulative and the need for added protection from a parapet is minimized. |
Appeal item 3
| Code Section | 1011.7 |
|---|---|
| Requires | a 1 hr rated enclosure is required under stairs. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | to install (2) layers 5/8" type 'x' to the underside of the stair serving apartment #4 |
| Proposed Design | This stair just serves apartment #4 but it is in a common area so code requires more than 1/2" gyp. bd. The shaft walls are confusing in the field I've been told. I'd like to keep it simple and install (2) layers 5/8" type 'x' to the underside of this stair. |
| Reason for alternative | Both supporting walls are already fire rated as required by code. Installing (2) layers 5/8" type 'x' is simple and will provide equivalent protection. |
Appeal item 4
| Code Section | 1029.3 |
|---|---|
| Requires | requires one hour rated walls and openings w/ 45 minute ratings along an egress court. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | To allow our North wall to remain as proposed. |
| Proposed Design | As proposed, and per the above appeal, we are intending to upgrade the entire North wall (higher than 10' even) to 1 hr equivalent. But the openings along that wall are not rated - there are two - a bedroom window and entry into the sprinkler room. |
| Reason for alternative | An additional sprinkler head could be placed above the door and window at grade level, along the north side adjacent to the egress court. |
Appeal item 5
| Code Section | 1011 |
|---|---|
| Requires | commercial stair requirements |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | To allow the existing residential stair to remain as is. |
| Proposed Design | There is what appears to be a very sound, secure, code compliant residential stair serving apartment #4. But - it is in a common area - so it is a commercial stair by code - but used just by one apartment. The rise is 7.5", treads are 10.5", min. ceiling height is 7'-4". |
| Reason for alternative | It's existing, appears code compliant to the residential code and will be serving just one unit. |
Appeal item 6
| Code Section | 1208.2 |
|---|---|
| Requires | habitable spaces require 7'-6" ceiling height |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The third floor has 7'-4" ceiling height. |
| Proposed Design | It was built with 7'-4" ceiling height. Low ceilings but lots of windows front and back. |
| Reason for alternative | No way to change this. |
Appeal Decision
"Item 1: Alternate one hour fire rated exterior wall assembly: Granted as proposed.
Item 2: Omission of parapet requirements on North and South walls: Granted as proposed.
Item 3: Two layers of 5/8"" Type X at underside of stair in lieu of tested listed horizontal assembly: Granted as proposed.
Item 4: Appeal not required. Egress court does not serve more than 10 occupants. OSSC 1029.3 Exception 1.
Item 5: Appeal not required. OSSC 3405.6.3
Item 6: Reduction of allowed ceiling height to 7'-4"": 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.