Appeal 33721
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 33721
Submission Date: 3/6/25 7:43 AM
Hearing Date: 3/12/25
Case #: R-003
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: residential
Building/Business Name:
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure,Reconsideration of appeal
Proposed use: Residential - Transient Use R-3
Project Address: 1625 NW Johnson St
Appellant Name: Brad Mascal
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 23-000389-CO
Stories: 3 Occupancy: R-3 Construction Type: VB
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - 13D at North Wall
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Geoffrey Harker
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | R302.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | TABLE 302.1 Exterior Walls |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | We are requesting that the north exterior wall remain as-in, unrated and with its existing openings intact, and are proposing the addition of a 13D sprinkler system to protect this wall and its openings. We are also requesting the omission of a 1 hour fire rated east and west eave within three feet of fire separation distance granted we provide one layer of type X gypsum sheathing to these soffits. |
| Proposed Design | The existing north wall is approximately 2” from the north property line and the property to the north is primarily open yard. There are no projections on the north wall but the eaves on the west and east are within 2’-3’ from the side lot lines. The building adjacent to the east has a solid concrete west wall, providing a 2 hr rating and a considerable level of safety for this property. The building to the west is an R-3 low hazard duplex. The exterior of the subject property is in good condition and does not need repairs. The exterior walls are wood studs with solid T+G painted wood siding, with gypsum wall board or original lathe and plaster on the interior side. In lieu of rating the existing north wall assembly and infilling the existing windows we are proposing the addition of a 13D sprinkler system along the north wall on three levels to target the wall and its openings. In lieu of reconstructing the projections on the east and west side to be fire rated, we propose adding one layer of Type X gypsum sheathing to these soffits and to not provide any openings in that portion of the roof that is within three feet of the property line. |
| Reason for alternative | While the north wall is within 3’ of the lot line, it is facing open yard to the north. The existing windows provide additional light and views while others also deliver fresh air to the respective rooms. Adjacent rooms are not reliant on any north facing openings for egress. Reconstructing the exterior wall with 1 hr fire rated construction would create a significant hardship as there are many architectural and historic features, such as trim, molding, cabinets, and soffits, that would need to be removed on the interior. And upgrading the assembly at the exterior would require access from the property to the north. Taking into account the surrounding context, the proposed design, in addition to the new sprinkler system and added layer at the eaves, provides a level of life safety meeting the intent of the code. |
Appeal Decision
"Item 1a: Provide NFPA 13D sprinklers in lieu of fire-rating for existing exterior walls: Granted provided an NFPA 13D sprinkler system is provided throughout the building.
Item 2b: Provide NFPA 13D sprinklers to protect wall openings 2 inches from property line: Granted provided all of the following conditions are met:
1. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system is provided throughout the building.
2. The operable windows on the north side of the house are replaced with fixed windows.
3. The third floor room on the north side of the house and second floor room on the north east corner of the house are not used for sleeping.
Item 1c: Eaves less than 3' from property line to be protected with 5/8"" Type X gypsum sheathing: Granted as proposed."
" ""The Administrative Appeal Board finds with the conditions noted, 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.
Under 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, how to file a reconsideration, and how to appeal to the Building Code Board of Appeal, go to https://www.portland.gov/ppd/file-appeal/appeal-process or email PPDAppeals@portlandoregon.gov.
"""