Appeal 34893

Appeal Summary

Status: DENIED

Appeal ID: 34893

Submission Date: 7/9/25 3:32 PM

Hearing Date: 7/24/25

Case #: 25-34

Appeal Type: Fire

Project Type: residential

Building/Business Name: Faster Permits

Appeal Involves: Reconsideration of appeal 25-23/34812

Proposed use: Residential

Project Address: 14235 E BURNSIDE ST

Appellant Name: Zachary Horton

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-008693 / 25-008700-RS

Stories: 2 Occupancy: R3 Construction Type: VB

Fire Sprinklers: No

Plans Examiner/Inspector: Dawn Krantz

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]

Payment Option: mail

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

PFC 503.1.1

Requires

The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. This distance can be increased to 250 feet if equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2

Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Extend distance beyond 250-feet with sprinklers provided

Proposed Design

Up to 383 feet per submitted diagram

RECONSIDERATION TEXT:

In reviewing similar appeals, I've found Appeal 31781, 31810, & 31823.

Appeal 31781 appears to be requesting the same adjustment to the code that we are without any additional trade-offs. A fire sprinkler system was provided in that case, as with ours, to increase the hose distance (to 330' in the case of appeal 31781).

Appeal 31810 offers con-combustible siding, roofing, and type x gypboard on the exterior walls. We can do this if necessary, but we would prefer not to as it increases costs.

Appeal 31823 offers Class A roofing. We can do this if necessary, but we would prefer not to as it increases costs.

Ultimately, we're willing to provide what is needed to get the distance approved. Do you have any recommendations on how to approach this?

I'm happy to write a reconsideration appeal that lists these 3 precedents, notes that we are willing to provide fire-resistant siding, roofing, and walls if necessary but prefer not to - and let the appeal board decide in the appeal conditions. Is that the best next step?

[WE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE FIRE TEAM VIA EMAIL WITH NO SUCCESS FOR THE LAST 36 DAYS. PLEASE RESPOND VIA THE APPEAL SO WE CAN MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD. THANK YOU]

Reason for alternative

Necessary for unit placement on property

The administrative staff has not yet reviewed this appeal.