City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

March 30th, 2006 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter John Craft

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Smalter

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Chairperson Queen called the meeting to order at 11:54 a.m.

 

Continue Discussion of the Energy Code

 

The Board discussed the live webcast presented by the Department of Energy.

 

Stogsdill noted that the 2006 Energy Code was much more practical and easier to use. He also stated that the only major issue left to resolve was the slab insulation.

 

The Board reviewed the webcast handout.

 

Craft noted the values for slab and foundation walls have increased in the 2006 IECC.

 

Queen noted that commercial construction energy requirements were much less restrictive. He thought the code focused too much on residential construction. Commercial occupancies wasted much more energy than residential. He used the example of the Grocery store doors that stay open when it’s 100 degrees outside.

 

Porter said that he believes the code tries to protect the home owner.

 

The Board reviewed the slab insulation detail.

 

Stogsdill said he has yet to see a code compliant trench footing and slab edge insulation detail that would apply to a trench footing with a monolithic slab. The issue of slab edge insulation has to be addressed. Insulating the slab edge presents a problem during construction. Once the trench is poured it would be difficult to protect the insulation while the underground plumbing and electrical systems are installed. The other issue would be the printed compliance sticker. He believes that there should be a generic form that can be copied and affixed to the panel. That way the contractor would not be required to use Rescheck to print the compliance sticker.

 

Queen noted the because the new code has R-13 walls 99% of builders will use the prescriptive method. If the Board can come up with a method to resolve the duct insulation and slab insulation most builders will use the prescriptive method.  He is assuming that the requirements will be low-e windows, R-13 walls, R-38 in attics, 80 percent efficient heating equipment and 13 SEER AC. 

 

Stogsdill noted that Rescheck is not yet compliant with the new 2006 Energy Code. Stogsdill asked Queen what was his recommendation on air duct.

 

Queen replied that the current standard is R-4. R-6 air duct looks similar to the duct currently in use today. R-6 duct is still flexible and easy to install. Queen stated that it is his understanding that R-8 air duct is stiff, difficult to install and more expensive. What the board had considered was to use R-6 air duct and cover it with blown in insulation. That would in essence raise the R value to R-8.

 

Jones said the problem he sees with that proposal is that he rarely sees an installation where the air duct is lying flat on the sheetrock ceiling between the joists allowing it to be covered with blown in insulation.  The flex duct is typically routed over truss and rafters.

 

Stogsdill said the best way would be to bring the air duct back into the building envelope or to box out an area in the attic to allow insulation to completely the duct. 

 

Jones stated the new code had many provisions that applied to the mechanical system.

 

Porter said that if the contractor neatly ran the air duct between the joist spaces and covered it with blown-in he wouldn’t have a problem with it.

 

Queen said he would prefer building a 9’ ceiling and use fur-downs.

 

Craft asked at what stage of construction is the mechanical inspection performed.

 

Jones replied that the inspection was performed prior to insulation and sheetrock.  Jones asked Queen if he had priced R-8 duct.

 

Queen replied he had been told it was very pricy. R-6 is much easier to work with.

 

Porter said that he would run a calculation assuming half of the duct was covered with blown-in insulation to determine what R-value could be achieved.

 

Stogsdill said that the duct insulation compromise was possible. He would ask how much heat loss occurs through the floor slab? How much time would it take to recover the added cost of insulating the floor slab money spent up front?

 

Queen added that maybe the issue was similar to the R-13 versus R-16 walls where it would take 40 years to recover the cost.

 

Craft said that he remembers the presenter of the webcast stating a significant amount of heat was lost through the floor. The Board discussed methods of placing slab edge insulation inline with the footing insulation for trench footings.

 

Queen asked if there was a method to determine actually how much energy was lost through the floor.

 

Porter said he would calculate the heat loss for a 1500 square foot home with a 10” slab with 6” exposed.

 

Jones noted that if the board was to amend the code it would amend table 402.1.1 .

An example would be the R-value and depth column.

 

Stogsdill replied that would be the section of the code that would be amended but, until the board could determine exactly how much energy was lost through each component.

 

The Board discussed the values and interpretation of Table 402.1.1.

 

Porter asked Jones the publish date of the remainder of the I-Codes.

 

Jones replied that all of the 2006 I-Codes have been published and are available for purchase.

 

Porter said that he would recommend that the Board consider review of the 2006 codes. The Board would determine if there are significant differences between the codes. If there are no major differences then adopt the 2006 codes. The codes currently under review are already three years old.

 

Craft asked if there was a publication of an analysis of changes between the 2003 and 2006 Codes.

 

Jones replied that he would check and provide information for the next meeting.

 

Jones stated that the Building Code and the Fire Code Board are the only boards that have reviewed the 2003 Codes. If the commission, after having reviewed the report showing all the problems with trying to blend the Codes, directs the trades boards to review the I-Codes then the boards will have to review the new code. Why adopt a code that is already 3 years old. Jones said that he suggested to Torres that the option to adopt all 2006 Codes be included in the report. If the 2003 codes are chosen, by the time the codes get to the commission for a vote they will be 4 years behind the current cycle.

 

Craft asked about the progress of code adoption.

 

Jones replied that Torres had issued a report to the commission regarding blending of the Codes. The report noted the large number of references between the codes that would have to be addressed by the board through amendments. The report presented the commission with a number of options. One option was to simply adopt the 2006 I-Codes.  Building department staff, fire department staff as well as the building and fire code boards, continued to recommend the complete set of I-Codes. There was a meeting with the City Manager, Torres, Legal Services, the Fire Marshall, and the Fire Chief.  Based on his information the Fire Chief made a strong recommendation for adoption of the I-Codes. Another option was to hire a code consultant to hash out the amendments that would be required to blend the Codes. At this point the Boards are waiting on direction from the commission.

 

Craft asked for a copy of the report.

 

Stogsdill stated that once again the energy requirements for the 2006 Energy Codes are referenced back to the IRC, IBC and IMC.

 

Jones noted the 2006 Energy Code required residential load calculations for mechanical systems. It is no longer a cookie cutter approach to sizing mechanical systems. This would directly affect the mechanical code.

 

Stogsdill stated that the bottom line is that there is a new energy Code, The Board is potentially looking at the 2006 Codes, which he feels is very rational.

 

Craft recommends that the Board draft a very short letter to the Commission stating that with the availability of the 2006 I-Codes, given the time frame that the Boards are operating under.

 

Stogsdill stated that the letter should state that the Commission has directed the Board to review the 2006 Energy Code. In doing so the Board has come to the conclusion that all the 2006 I-codes should be adopted because the energy Code refers to standards and references that are only in the newer Codes.  The Boards should do this in one fell swoop across the boards and be done with.

 

Jones said it should be a simple direct statement from the commission to the Boards to adopt the 2006 I-codes.

 

Stogsdill made a motion to recommend adoption of the 2006 I-Codes. Seconded by Porter. Motion passed 4-0.  

 

The Board discussed the energy compliance certificate. Queen suggested that for uniformity the City should provide the certificates.

 

Craft suggested the City should apply the sticker at the time of final inspection.

 

Jones said that the certificate was part of the final energy inspection.     

 

Meeting adjourned 1:05      

 

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