Appeal 34867

Appeal Summary

Status: Decision Rendered - RECONSIDERATION OF 34846 and 34847

Appeal ID: 34867

Submission Date: 7/1/25 11:10 AM

Hearing Date: 7/9/25

Case #: R-1

Appeal Type: Building

Project Type: residential

Building/Business Name:

Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal

Proposed use: house and adu

Project Address: 9743 n syracuse

Appellant Name: dave spitzer

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-042627-RS

Stories: 1 Occupancy: r3 Construction Type: vb

Fire Sprinklers: Yes - in adu per this appeal

Plans Examiner/Inspector: c. pagnotta

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

r302.1

Requires

Requires walls and eaves to be 1-hour fire rated adjacent to property lines.

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Fully sprinkle the ADU with an NFPA 13D system and leave the existing eaves on the ADU and detached home unrated.

Proposed Design

The South and West walls of the ADU already have gypsum board on the inside face. We will install an additional layer of 5/8" Type-X gypsum on the inside face of these walls according to Building Code Guide 23-10.

The eaves between the two structures (ADU and house) currently touch. As part of the current permit submittal, we propose to cut back the ADU eave, so it is 3' from the house. The unrated house eave - about 1'-6" from the imposed property line would remain - and both eaves for the ADU would remain after the lower eave is cut back to be 3' from the house.

This appeal proposes to sprinkle the entire ADU to NFPA 13D standards resulting in an equivalent level of protection for the ADU and detached house in lieu of compliant fire separation distance.

Reason for alternative

Existing conditions make it hard to meet code in this case. By providing fire sprinklers in the ADU - we will prevent fire from spreading and the proximity of walls and eaves will not be as much of an issue.

Appeal Decision

NFPA 13D sprinkler protection in lieu of specific rating / protection of the ADU and house eaves: 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.