City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

January 19th, 2006 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

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

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

Robert Still

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

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

 

Sound Transmission

Board heard presentation from Robert Still on amending the code to include sound barriers

 

Mr. Still discussed a problem he was having with sound coming from the adjacent property. He believed the adjacent property was remodeled and the garage was converted  into living space.  He believed when the neighborhoods are developed the sound transmission is taken into consideration.  When homes are remodeled there are no qualified inspectors to ensure that sound barriers are not eliminated.  He wanted the City to have a system that ensured remodeled homes had sound barriers installed to prevent transmission of sound to the adjacent properties.  He says that the neighbors have a very loud stereo system in their garage. He has called the police many times regarding sound. He says that many houses in his neighborhood have been remodeled and the garages converted into living space. He thinks that if there is a sound transmission requirement the owners who remodel without a permit are not complying.  

 

Queen asked if Mr. Still knew if the adjacent properties had insulation that was eliminated during the remodel.

 

Mr. Still replied that the homes were remodeled before he moved into the neighborhood. Mr. Still stated that he has worked with the police department’s noise ordinance to abate the problem but has been unsuccessful so far.  He says that he has worked with the City for almost a year to get the problem resolved. He said the nuisance ordnance requires three complaints and a conviction before anything can be done. He said to his knowledge no one has been convicted under the nuisance ordinance.

 

Porter noted that IRC section 1208 of the code addressed sound transmission between dwelling units in the same structure. Porter added that excessive sound or noise from individual dwelling units is almost universally controlled by sound or nuisance ordinances. There are no provisions in the current UBC or the IRC to control sound transmission from exterior walls.

 

Mr. Still stated that his purpose in coming before the Board ask the Board to consider if sound transmission be included in the new or current.

 

Craft stated that any sort of remodel in his neighborhood should have had a permit. Any remodel would have included thermal insulation which would have acted as a sound barrier.

 

Porter stated that the problem with containing the sound was that most exterior walls have windows and doors which are not good barriers to sound.

 

Craft suggested Mr. Still use planting or fencing to block sound.

 

Mr. Still also stated that the other problem associated with the garage conversion is that the added living space is used as more rental space. This means more noise, more trash and more cars.

 

Jones stated that rental ordinances should limit the number of persons in a single family unit.

 

Porter stated that another problem is that the current methods of preventing sound transmission deals attenuating the higher frequencies such as speech. It is much more difficult to block low frequencies such as the base that Mr. Still is having problems with.

As a matter of physics if his neighbor had a sound barrier of SCD50, which is the sound transmission standard, it would have very little effect on the transmission of lower frequencies.

 

Queen stated that the Board understands Mr. Still frustration but he feels that there is nothing the Board could to do as far as amending the Code that wouldn’t add an enormous amount of construction cost.

 

Jones said that he researched the permit history of 804 Crestliine and there is no record of a remodel permit.

 

Queen added that the remodel could have been done to code and that would not have lowered the noise level.

 

Stogsdill stated that there is an off street parking violation. The owners would be in violation of the zoning ordinance.

 

Jones stated that staff has contacted the owner regarding the parking issue.

 

Mr. Still said that since the owners got away with converting the garage without a permit then there is nothing the City could do at this point.

 

Jones stated that was not necessarily the case. The City is currently addressing the issue with the owner. Staff is trying to determine when the remodel occurred and what steps can be taken to correct the problem. Ultimately it is the owner’s responsibility to comply with current Codes and ordinances.  Mr. Still said there are four houses in his immediate vicinity that have been converted.

 

Queen stated there is nothing in the Code that would address Mr. Still’s problem. The bottom line is that the code cannot do anything about bad neighbors. The consensus of the Board was that no action was required on Mr. Still request to amend the Code to require sound barriers in single family residential construction.

 

Board reviewed the minutes from 12-15-06

Queen moved to approve the minutes as written.  Seconded by Porter.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

Discuss amending prescriptive elements of the energy Code

Queen stated that apparently the zone map in the 2003 IECC which the IRC is based on has been completely changed.

 

Jones said that in the 2006 IECC the City of Lawrence is in Zone 4.

 

Queen said that according to his information the exterior envelope requirements have increased with the new zones.

 

Craft sated that his information about the changes is that the new 2006 code has reduced the number of zones from 16 down to 4 or 5.  There was a push by the fiberglass producers to up the R values to R-19. That was rescinded.

 

Queen show the board the Johnson County amendments to the prescriptive elements of the code. R-13 in walls, R-38 in ceilings R-30 in cathedral ceilings, floors over outside air R-30. Queen said in the past review of the Code he suggested that the City come up with a prescriptive method that would not add too much cost, but would increase energy efficiency of current construction methods.

 

Craft said that he had a broader question. With the changes to the Zoning maps, should the Board be looking at the 2006 Code as soon as a copy is available? Craft said it is his understanding that the new map puts Lawrence at R-13 for exterior walls.

 

Jones said that his review of the information indicated that Zone 4 was R-13.

 

Queen said that if the City was in the R-13 Zone then he would like to address duct insulation. He would like the prescriptive method to reduce duct insulation back to R-6 because there would be 4 or 5 inches of blown in insulation on top if air ducts in the attic. The R-8 ducts are cumbersome and difficult to work with. The only other issue to deal with was the slab insulation.

 

Porter said he would suggest that the Board find out when the 2006 IECC is published. If the charts have changed there is no reason to review the 2003. He believed that at this point it would not be smart to adopt the 2003 IECC and IRC.  

 

Queen said that if the new zone puts Lawrence back to R-13 then he does not see very many contractors using Rescheck. He would like to see a simplified prescriptive table that would be easy to use and inspect.

 

The consensus of the Board was to request staff determine the publish date for 2006 IECC and determine which zone the City of Lawrence is in.

 

Stogsdill said that the slab insulation would have to be addressed.

 

Queen stated that Ron Durflinger submitted a slab insulation detail to Victor Torres for review. Torres was to research the details.

 

The Board briefly discussed slab insulation details.

 

Discussion of 1hr rated wall

Stogsdill discussed 1 hr common wall separating dwelling units. He asked if it was permissible to put sound board under the layer of sheetrock and still maintain 1 hr separation.

 

Porter suggested that batt insulation would do a better job of sound limiting sound transmission and it is a cheaper product. He said the sound board is transparent. The only way to really stop sound is mass.

 

Stogsdill agreed and added that his research indicated that gypsum board was better than sound board at limiting sound transmission. He asked if the 1 inch separation between the common wall creates a fire-stop problem on two story duplexes. Is blocking necessary?  

 

The Board discussed construction methods for draft stopping and fire-stopping for two hour duplex common walls.

 

Stogsdill asked what the code requirement for attic space separation in duplexes.

 

Jones replied that space is required to be separated by a draft stop which could be constructed of ½” gypsum, 3/8” wood, structural panels or 3/8” particleboard. 

 

Jones stated that in a discussion with the mechanical inspector it was noted that the new 2006 UMC only required .75 cfm of air changes per square foot for commercial garages. The IMC required 1.5 cfm. Jones asked which board would evaluate those requirements to determine if they were adequate. Jones felt that interior environment was a building code issue. How could the boards determine if those type of differences existed unless there was a comparative analysis performed on the IMC and UMC by both Boards.

 

Smalter said the Building Code Board has already determined in a statement to the commission that the mechanical code it is not the Building Codes Board’s area of expertise.  

 

Jones replied that outside air requirements have typically been associated with the building code and addressed in the building Code.  Those requirements are currently in the 1997 UBC.  Jones said he thought the Mechanical Boards expertise was in the installation of mechanical equipment, ductwork, sizing of equipment and piping. The mechanical board never addressed outside air discrepancies between the two codes in it’s review and decision to go with the UMC.

 

Stogsdill said that he feels that staff will have to fill in the void between the two boards, and monitor any concerns that may be overlooked. Staff is the only group that has crossover training in the Mechanical Code and Building Codes.

 

Stogsdill thought the decision on the amount of outside air would be determine by a mechanical engineer.

 

Porter said that he read online minutes from the Mechanical Board where the Board stated back in October that it wanted to get together with the Building Code Board and Fire Code Board to work out these type differences. Here it is January and the Building Code Board has not heard of that request to meet.

 

Jones said he was unaware of that request. 

 

Porter said it was in the accepted minutes from the Mechanical Board. He said that some of the same issues that are being discussed by both Boards. He feels there is a need to for the Boards to meet. The air requirement is a perfect example. There seems to be a significant difference between the IMC and UMC. There has to be many more similar types of issues.

 

Queen asked if there had been any direction from the City commission since they received the letter.  

 

Jones said that he had not heard of any response. He also said that he thought that he thought a comprehensive report was necessary that included code text comparing the provisions in the I-Codes that crossed referenced building and fire provisions in the UMC. The Boards could review and then meet about those provisions.

 

Stogsdill stated the Energy Code has been superceded by the 2006 Code. Why adopt an old code. If the new energy code has changed then the IRC will have to be amended or adopt the 2006 IRC.

 

Queen stated that the 2003 IRC could refer to the newer charts. There would be no reason to delay the 2003 IRC.

 

Jones commented that the 2006 IRC may have very few changes from the 2003 IRC.  

 

Queen suggested the Board meet again when there was definite information about the publish dates of the 2006 Energy, and IRC Codes.      

 

Stogsdill moved to adjourn Motion seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 5-0.