Appeal 33690
Appeal Summary
Status: DECISION RENDERED
Appeal ID: 33690
Submission Date: 2/11/25 3:57 PM
Hearing Date: 2/19/25
Case #: R-001
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: Residential
Building/Business Name: 4235 S.E. Stark St
Appeal Involves: Erection of a new structure
Proposed use: adu
Project Address: 4235 S.E. Stark St UNIT B
Appellant Name: dave spitzer
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-029395 -RS
Stories: 2 Occupancy: U, R3 Construction Type: VB
Fire Sprinklers: No
Plans Examiner/Inspector: tara carlson
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1]
Payment Option: mail
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | R302.3 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Requires 1 hr rated walls supporting a rated floor/ceiling assembly |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | Mistake in the field and no gyp. bd. was installed prior to siding on the exterior See Ground Floor Plan 2/A1 and sections on A2. |
| Proposed Design | The South, North and East, ground floor walls were all designed as 1 hour walls since they support a 1 hour floor/ceiling assembly. The siding was somehow installed with no 5/8" type 'x' gyp. sheathing under it. Now - as a retrofit - we'd like to install an additional layer of gyp. bd on the inside face of the wall instead. So now there would just be plywood and siding on the exterior, and the interior would have (1) layer of 1/2" gyp. bd. that is existing and we'd add (1) layer of 5/8" type 'x' gyp. bd to the interior face. |
| Reason for alternative | Trying to correct a mix up in the field. We have great yards adjacent to all three of the proposed walls - all those yards are 10'+ so a fire would likely be coming from inside - so our additional internal layer may be more appropriate in this instance. |
Appeal Decision
Modify exterior wall assembly supporting a fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling assembly: Granted as proposed. Permit revision required.
"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.