City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

December 15th, 2005 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

John Craft

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

Barry Walthall Codes Enforcement Manager

 

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Chairperson Queen called the meeting to order at 11:59 a.m.

 

Board reviewed minutes

Board reviewed minutes from 11-10-05

 

Stogsdill asked to strike a portion of text on page 3 of his statement explaining section 3103 temporary structures.  If the reader did not have the code text to review the statement would not be clear to the reader.

 

Porter asked to change the statement on page 3 “Porter and Craft agreed”  to Craft agreed. Text seemed to suggest that Porter agreed with his own previous statement.   

 

Porter moved to accept the minutes as amended, Seconded by Stogsdill. Motion passed 4-0.

 

Board reviewed the minutes from 12-01-05

 

Porter moved to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Queen. Motion passed 4-0.

 

Board received report on Jones presentation to the Fire Code Board. 

 

Jones stated that he was asked by Torres to update the Fire Code Board on the progress and process of adoption of International Residential Code (IRC) and International Building Code (IBC) by the Building Code Board.  Jones stated that he received a update from Torres on the IRC and IBC. He relayed this update to the Firecode Board.

 

Jones reported to the Fire Code Board that Torres in discussion with the legal department and the City Managers Office decided to adopt the IRC and the IBC concurrently. The trades portion of the IRC was amended out by the Legal Services staff.  The IBC will be amended to incorporate the ventilation section of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The timetable for adoption would be no later than March or as soon as the Building Code Board has completed it’s review.  He also explained the process the Building Code Board used to review the IBC.

 

The consensus of the Fire Code Board was that the IBC and the International Fire Code (IFC) had to be adopted concurrently.  The sprinkler and fire separation requirements changed significantly between code cycles to the point that the 1997 Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and 2003 IFC were incompatible. The 1997 UFC and 2003 IBC would require significant amendments to coordinate code provisions. The 2003 IFC will also require significant amendments to incorporate the 1997 UBC mechanical ventilation requirements.  The Fire Code Board wanted to coordinate adoption of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). The Fire Code Board also had concerns regarding ventilation requirements of the IFC.  If the International Mechanical Code (IMC) is not adopted the many references to hazardous and flammable materials ventilation sections will have to be amended. The Fire Code Board expressed concern that the additional amendments required to blend the codes would extend the timetable for adoption.

 

Jones stated his preliminary analysis indicated that the mechanical ventilation requirements 1997 UBC could be coordinated into the IBC with few if any problems. Jones stated that he was directed by Torres to prepare a report on the coordination of the 1997 UBC mechanical ventilation and the 2003 IBC.

 

The Fire Code Board has asked the Building Board to coordinate the adoption on the next series of codes.  

 

Queen asked if the Building Board would be deleting the mechanical portion of the IBC.

 

Jones replied that there was no mechanical section of the IBC. The Board would amend in the mechanical ventilation portion of the 1997 UBC.

 

Queen asked if the adoption of the IBC and 1997 UBC ventilation is in anticipation of the new Uniform Mechanical Code.

 

Jones replied the anticipation is that the Uniform Mechanical Code will not be ready in time for the adoption of the IBC.

 

Queen asked if it is the plan of the City to adopt the IBC now with the 1997 UBC sections, then in six or eight months when the Mechanical Board completed the review and amendments of the 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code assuming no problems with that code blending.  

 

Jones replied that seemed to be the plan

 

Jones added another concern of the Fire code Board was that the Codes would have to be amended twice. They also questioned which board would be responsible for amending the Codes. 

 

Queen stated that it might require 30 or 40 amendments to blend the 1997 UBC with the IBC.  When the 2006 UMC is completed and ready for adoption the ordinance will have to be rewritten. He added that would be a tremendously wasteful exercise.  

 

Porter stated the amendments should be left to the Mechanical Board.

 

Stogsdill asked about the timetable for the Fire Code Board.

 

Jones replied that the Fire code Board had just started it’s review of the IFC.

 

Queen suggested that the City adopt the IRC because it was a stand alone document. then adopt the IBC, IFC when all the codes can be coordinated with the Mechanical Code.  The Building Code Board can finish it’s work today and tell the commission to put the IBC on the shelf until the other codes are completed. The codes are interlocking.

 

Stogsdill said he sees no reason to adopt the IBC until the IFC is ready for adoption.

 

Stogsdill asked what was the incentive to push forward the codes.

 

Walthall replied that what staff was trying to accomplish was to have a meticulous process, have a document for the City Commission that is flawlessly put together, passes legal muster and addresses all of the concerns.  The Commission has asked that code adoption process be expedited and move onto the Energy Code.  Staff is giving City Management periodic progress updates. Legal staff wants the amendments correct. The focus is on moving forward.

 

Queen stated the current Commercial Codes and ordinances comply and pass legal muster.  It seems delaying the adoption of the IBC only makes everyone’s life easier.  It doesn’t make sense to make all the amendments then comeback and redo everything when the new Mechanical Code and is ready.  If the new mechanical Code comes ready in six months and if it meshes with the IBC and IFC all the codes could be forwarded to the Commission at once.

 

Smalter stated she does not understand how the city can explain to design professionals that come to the City of Lawrence that this portion of the building has to be design by one code, but not a certain section of that Code, and another section has to be designed by another Code. The codes are designed to be consistent. She does not think that the City should try to adopt the mechanical ventilation portion of the 1997 UBC.

 

Queen said that if the Commission wants an Energy Code then the Building Code Board is ready to  move on.  Let’s shelve the IBC and move to the Energy Code.

 

Smalter said the Board was ready to approve the draft of the IBC.  The draft now has to be rewritten to amend in the 1997 UBC. The Building Code Board is being consistent with the direction of the Commission in completing the review of the Codes.

 

Queen said he would be glad to sign a letter and send it to the City Commission explaining why the Board would like to delay adoption of the IBC.  He would send it to the Commission as the chairman of the Board.  The Board feels it is counterproductive and a waste of Board time, legal time, and staff time on something that will have to redone in a few months.

 

Walthall stated that the board has responded and Torres and legal staff needs to hear that and decided what direction the City wants to take.  If the Board wanted to put a letter together for legal staff, City Management, and the Commission explaining it’s position that would be appropriate. 

Stogsdill stated that it is a flawed concept to adopt the IBC without the other codes that are attached to it directly reviewed because the Building Code does not function by itself.  The IRC can function by itself.  The board believes it is a rational approach for all the Commercial Codes to be put together and proposed at one time.  The IRC can be pushed forward independently. 

 

Smalter said all the boards will have to look at the amendments.

 

Jones stated the International Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code cannot exist without drastically amending the two codes.

 

Porter added that putting a code together is very tedious operation. All the “I”s have to be dotted and the “t”s have to be crossed.  To try and marry different codes is a dumb idea.  It is trying to reinvent the wheel. It is not good professional practice.

 

Walthall stated that going into the code review process the Boards understood that they had directions from the City Commission to create a situation where there would be a blended Code.

 

Jones stated that Commissioner Dunfield asked the Boards to report back to the commission if there was a problem with the blending of the codes.  

 

Walthall stated that the Building Code Board always had the option to have an open dialogue with the City Commission. The Building Board is an appointed board and the Commission wanted the input from the Board.

 

Porter replied that is what will have to happen. The Building Code Board members are all licensed professionals. We are on the Board representing those professions. The Codes are the canons of those professions require them to protect the public health safety and welfare and he cannot say in any honesty that trying to blend the Codes is the right thing to do.

 

Stogsdill added that it is not good professional practice.

 

Queen agreed, adding this is nothing against the Mechanical Board. He was resolved on making the blended code work. His concern is that the Building Board and Fire Board would go through all the problems of blending the code to adopt them now then if the new Mechanical works going through the whole process again with the Building and Fire Code Boards.

 

Smalter said there is no guarantee that the new Mechanical Code will move forward. At that point the City will have a blended code that is not fully functional and it didn’t want in the first place.

 

Queen stated that Building Board was directed to review the IBC and the IRC. The Board has done that as expeditiously as any other Board.  The Mechanical Board was directed to review the International Mechanical Code.

 

Stogsdill said that it needed to be adamantly expressed that the Board feels the codes should be integrated before they are put forward.

 

Porter asked Walthall how best the Board could work with staff in proving input to the commission and going forward.

 

The Board consensus was to draft a letter to the commission expressing the concerns.

 

Stogsdill asked if the Fire code Board was of similar mindset regarding mixing of the IBC and the UFC.

 

Jones replied the Fire code Board had concerns primarily about building separation and sprinklers. It was also unsure of how the new Mechanical Code would address ventilation of hazardous and flammable materials.  

 

Walthall said building inspection staff and fire prevention staff have the same concerns.  

 

Stogsdill asked what did the Board want to say to the Commission.

 

Porter replied that the what the Board is saying is that the Board cannot recommend current adoption of the IBC until the reviews of the Mechanical Code and the Fire Code is are complete. The Fire code and Mechanical Codes are integral to the IBC.

 

Queen added that the Board has completed it’s review of the Code. 

 

Stogsdill stated that after hearing the concerns of the Fire Code Board the Board felt it was important to stress the opinion that the Codes are integrated and woven tightly and if they are not put forth as a whole that if there are many places where the Code can fall apart. If the Fire Code and Mechanical Code are not ready at this time then the Board would recommend that the IBC is postponed until the Codes could be meshed properly.

 

Queen stated that it would be a terrible waste of staff time.

 

Stogsdill asked about the IRC. The IRC references other International Codes. The Boards recommendation was that those chapters be left in the code.

 

Jones asked Walthall what was the progress of the IRC.

 

Walthall replied that the IRC was reviewed by two other Boards. The Boards recommended that the NEC and the UPC in place of the provisions of the IRC.

Legal staff is going to amend out the trades portion of the IRC draft.

 

Queen stated that it not surprising that the legal department changed the Boards recommendation.   

 

Stogsdill stated that in essence the City has a blended Residential Code.

Walthall stated that the justification was that it was the direction of the City Commission.

 

Queen said the letter should include a statement that says that there are three design professionals on the Board and the address the problems the design community will have working with this particular blended code set.

 

Stogsdill stated that it is in best interest of the City to submit the ordinance only once and to do it correctly the first time.

 

Walthall said it would be a good idea to include the Energy Code with the building and Fire Code.

 

Residential Energy Code 

 

Queen stated that after exploring the IRC he believes that it would be easier to use the prescriptive method. He would like to revisit the idea of amending the prescriptive requirements mainly the R-16 in the exterior walls. Builders will end up in essence using the prescriptive methods but have to pay a design professional to evaluate the building using Rescheck.  The national association of Home Builders is trying to get the R-16 appealed. They did a study and determined that it would take 40 years to recover the extra cost of the R-13 walls. The slab sedge insulation is also mandatory.

 

Appendices 

 

Walthall stated that it should not be the determining factor in adopting the grading appendix.

 

Stogsdill asked if the City is covered through site planning and inspection to cover any grading problems.

 

Porter said his concern is future development. It appears that under current ordinances anybody with a bulldozer and can completely change the property contour.

 

The Board consensus is not to adopt the Appendix J Grading

 

Stogsdill moved to adjourn, seconded by Porter. Motion passed 4-0

 

Meeting adjourned 1:23 p.m.