BDS Appeal Summary


From Carrie Strickland, AIA, WPA:

Here is an update along with the history.  Please read it all…  especially because folks are now talking about reaching out to Terry.  He’s been helpful and we don’t want seem ungrateful.


On March 16th, 2016 an approved set of drawings were issued by the City of Portland for the project 15-215002 CO located at 4262 SE Belmont Street, prepared by Works Progress Architecture. Within the approved set of drawings, the building construction type and fire resistive requirements located on sheet g0.02 – Project Location & Code Summary, nominate a 1hr fire rating requirement for interior bearing walls. The typical assemblies and details for interior 1hr bearing walls is located at detail 11/a0.03, which illustrates the type X gypsum wall board terminating at the underside of the fire rated/floor ceiling assembly membrane (UL G551 or UL G553) via fire taped and finished joint.


On Mach 9th during a routine cover inspection, the Building Inspector issued a corrections notice for the plans examiner to approve the bearing wall conditions as installed in the field per 11/a0.03. On March 14th W.PA and Abbott Construction met with the plans examiner to further discuss the condition and to come to a resolution. As a result of this meeting, the plans examiner identified that the bearing wall condition will need to meet section 704.3 – Protection of the Primary Structural Frame Other Than Columns and that partitions will need to meet 711.4 – Continuity.


All of the building framing is of metal stud construction and  metal joists with metal deck and concrete floors. The interior load bearing walls cannot be corrected with the continuous gypsum wall board layer to the underside of the metal decking per 704.3, since the structural rim joist is already taking loads from the floor decking and topping slab and was built per the detail as depicted in the approved set of drawings; correction would require removal of the rim joist. Due to this as-built condition, an alternative solution is required to provide continuity of the individual encasement to the load bearing wall as suggested within plans examiners email dated 3/15/17.


Subsequently, on March 20th a building code appeal was filed Appeal ID: 14823, to be heard on March 22nd. The building code appeal listed three items to be appealed to the board;


  • 3 – Protection of the Primary Structural Frame Other Than Columns

The appeal is to maintain the as built condition as permitted in detail 11/a0.03

  • 4 – Continuity

The appeal is to install 4” of ROXUL Safe in the top track of the interior partition walls to continue the horizontal membrane.

  • 3 – Protection of the Primary Structural Frame Other Than Columns

The appeal is to encase the load bearing walls with 2” of ROXSUL on each side in lieu of the gypsum wall board.


On March 24th the building code appeal result was released, noting that the result was ‘held for additional information’. Upon further discussion with the plans examiner, it was determined that the appeals board some concerns about the ROXSUL product and that they were to continue discussions with the Building Inspector about each detail condition.


W.PA has continued to work through providing information. W.PA has also contacted a number of building officials, inducing Paul Scarlett – Director of Building Development Services to come to an immediate resolution. Paul directed W.PA’s concern to Terry Whitehill and Cindy Meyer in an attempt to resolve the issue today. Upon further discussion with Terry, he did mentioned that we are still under the requirement of the appeal board and a decision will not be able to be made until the next hearing date – 29th March.


As of the end of day today, we have talked to Terry Whitehill about the action plan moving forward. We will be filing 4 appeals this weekend to be heard next week.

  1. The first is change the building type classification to type IIB which would eliminate the rating requirement in question.  We will need to identify what items in the building do not meet this classification as part of the consideration.
  2. We will file an appeal for gyp and rock wool at the demising walls between units.
  3. We will re-file our appeal regarding how to approach penetrations in the rated ceiling for non-loading bearing or non-rated walls.
  4. We will file an appeal as an alternative to appeal item #1 that would show gyp and rock wool within the ceiling cavity similar to the demising all detail discussed with Terry.



Carrie Strickland



Works Progress Architecture LLP

811 SE Stark Street, S210

Portland, OR 97214

(503) 234-2945