City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

April 27th, 2006 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, Mike Porter, John Craft

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Janet Smalter

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Review minutes January 19th, 2006

 

Craft noted that in the minutes of March 30th, he asked for a copy of the report submitted by Torres to the Commission on the progress of code adoption. Jones stated that he believes the report was submitted but had not made it onto the agenda and had therefore not been released.

 

Craft asked if there had been any further development on the progress of code adoption.

 

Queen stated that the Fire and Building Code Boards have written letters to the Commission recommending adoption of all the I-Codes.

 

Craft asked if the holdup was still the Plumbing and Mechanical Boards.

 

Jones stated that he wasn’t sure. He stated that Fire Marshall Rich Barr met with the Mechanical Board to discuss references between the Fire Code, Electrical Code and the Mechanical Code.  

 

Queen asked how could there be conflicts between the I-Codes and the Electrical Code.

 

Jones responded that it his understanding that the International Electrical Code and the National Electrical Code are the exact same Code. There is only one Electrical Code.

 

Queen said that he believes the IEC (International Electrical Code) is a small reference book that says the NEC (National Electrical Code) is our Code. There should not be any conflicts.

 

Jones noted that the code adoption process has dragged on for almost two years.  In his conversations with other code officials, jurisdictions typically take only one or two months to adopt a new set of Codes.  He said that Tim Pinnick, City of Lawrence Inspections Supervisor, said that Tonganoxie adopted the I-Codes in a couple of days.

 

Craft said that if the Commission had directed the Boards to adopt the I-Codes this process would have been over with long ago.

 

Queen said that everyone knew that when the Commission optioned for a divided code that this would happen.  Now, that decision has come back to haunt us.  Customers are asking him how long before the new codes are adopted.  He has to respond that he doesn’t know.

 

Stogsdill stated he expects contractors to come the Board looking for appeals. He has actually told people when a newer code has an option that the current code doesn’t, he, as a board member, is very open to those ideas.  If the Board starts to hear appeals simply because Lawrence is not up to the current code, that would double the Boards tasks.

 

Jones noted that very situation had occurred last week. A builder who typically builds in Kansas City and Johnson County area under the I-Codes framed a house with the braced wall panels spaced incorrectly. The plans he submitted for plan review were modified but his framer was working off of the set he’d used the last ten times he’d framed the house.  It was fortunate that the error was caught in the initial stage of framing. The framer was very upset that he had to reframe the house just because he was in Lawrence.  I apologized and explained the code situation. In the end the Contractor hired an engineer to stamp off on the original plans verifying that the structure met the wind and seismic requirements for the City of Lawrence.

 

Porter wanted the minutes changed to correct “SCD50” to STC 50 correctly identifying the Sound Transmission Class.

 

Queen stated that his statement regarding insulation and ductwork was not matter of fact but was his understanding based on what he’d heard. He asked that the wording be changed to reflect that he “believes” or “has been told”.

 

Porter moved to approve the minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Stogsdill. Motion passed 4-0.

 

Review minutes March 30th, 2006

 

Queen wanted the minutes amended characterizing his statements to reflect that “it was his understanding” or “he has been told”.  

 

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

 

Review letter to Commission

 

Queen stated that by adopting the 2003 IRC (International Residential Code), which references the 2003 IECC (International Energy Conservation Code). The 2003 IECC has been amended so much that it is unusable as a code. The 2006 IECC is an easier code to use.   

Stogsdill stated that it would simplify things to go straight to the 2006 codes but, there are other boards that are working on codes that would have to comply the 2006. If the Building Board jumped straight to the 2006, that might create a problem.

 

Porter said that only the Fire Code Board has reviewed any of the I-Codes.

 

Queen stated that if the Board adopts the 2003 IRC it would have to adopt the 2006 IECC.

 

Porter asked why can’t the Building Board do the logical thing and recommend the 2006 Codes across the board. It is no longer 2003.

 

Stogsdill stated that it would only require changing the references in the IRC to refer to the 2006 IECC instead of the 2003 IECC.

 

Jones stated that it would also require amending all of the references in the 2006 IECC. The 2006 IECC refers to all 2006 I-Codes. Mixing different cycle years presents some of the same problems as blending codes from different model code agencies.

 

Stogsdill stated that at this point the Board has two courses of action. One is to move down the current course and use the 2006 Energy Code because the 2003 Energy code is no longer a usable code.  This would require the use of the 2006 IBC (International Building Code) and 2006 IFC (International Fire Code).  The other option is to adopt the 2003 IRC and IBC and make the amendments necessary to coordinate it with the 2006 IECC.

 

Porter stated that the Board has messed around with this issue for two years. Let’s just go to the 2006 and say that’s where the Board is now. The Board should recommend adoption of the 2006 IBC and IRC.

 

Jones said that it would be important to coordinate code cycles with the Fire Code, because they are I-Codes.  There would be no conflict with the Electrical Code. The plumbing and mechanical code references will have to be amended regardless of the cycle year.

 

Porter stated that the Building Board should ask the Fire Code Board if they have any objection going to the 2006 Code. If the Fire Code Board did not have any objection he did not see a down side.

 

Stogsdill stated that he had heard that the 2006 IRC required sprinklers in all residential structures. He did not know that for a fact. That would be a significant change.  He continued that if residential sprinklers were required he would be opposed to amending the code to require metal sprinkler piping. He would not want the IRC amended to require metal piping similar to the current plumbing code amendment for potable water supply piping material.

 

 

 

Jones asked how would sprinkler piping materials get amended.

 

Stogsdill responded that it would depend on who was reviewing the code for piping materials.

 

Porter stated that if plastic residential piping were allowed, the price of sprinkler systems would not be that expensive.

 

Queen stated that in his 19 years of construction no one has ever asked him to install a sprinkler system in a residential home.  Most home owners care more about toe space under the kitchen cabinet than they do about sprinkler systems.  They know that a home that is wired correctly and plumbed correctly will not have a problem with fires. Homeowners are more concerned with a home costing $4,000.00 less than a sprinkler system. To make sprinkler systems mandatory now when the City has unbelievable rising cost of construction is like throwing gasoline on fire.

 

Porter said that if sprinklers were required in the new code the Board should consider that provision before approving it.

 

Queen stated that what forced this discussion was the drastic change between the 2003 IECC and the 2006 IECC.  It became apparent that the 2003 Code was no longer a viable option.

 

Stogsdill stated the Board was directed to review the Energy Code.  Can the Board just say it makes no sense to review the 2003 because it’s not even a usable code?

 

Porter asked if the Board was directed to review the 2003 IECC or the Energy Code.

 

The consensus of the Board was that the 2003 IECC was not an option.

 

Jones stated that now the Board needed a copy of the 2006 IRC and IBC to review.

 

Stogsdill said the Board needed to confirm that there were no major issues with the 2006 IRC and IBC.  When the Board completes its task it will say the City should adopt the 2006 IBC, 2006 IRC and 2006 IECC.

 

Jones stated that the Building Board should refer to the Fire Code Board for its opinion on the 2006 IBC and IFC.  He agrees with Porter that it make more sense to adopt the current codes.

 

Craft stated that the Board needs the 2006 Codes to review.

 

Stogsdill asked if there was a cross reference document similar to that which was used to review the 2003 Codes.

 

Queen stated that it should be a one meeting deal with the cross reference documents.

Porter moved to request staff to supply the Board with the analysis of changes between the 2003 IRC and IBC and 2006 IRC and IBC Code Books.  Seconded by Craft. Motion passed 4-0.

 

 

Stogsdill asked staff to contact the Fire Code Board and inquire if they are open to considering adoption or review of the 2006 IFC.  

 

Jones stated that he believes that it is time for the boards to meet to discuss the amendments required to blend the Codes. He said that to his knowledge there has not been any discussion on amendments to coordinate provisions of the blended code set.

 

Stogsdill asked if the 2006 UMC (Uniform Mechanical Code) resolved the ventilation issues as had been promised. 

 

Jones replied it was his understanding that the Mechanical Board had a list of the Building Code references to the IMC.  He had not heard anything. He thought there were some conflicts remaining. The IAPMO representative informed the Mechanical Board that ICC and IAPMO had agreed to develop a joint mechanical and plumbing code for the 2009 code cycle. This will be the last year this debate over which code jurisdictions will have to adopt.

 

Queen stated that was all the more reason for the City to adopt the all I-Codes. Why wait three years to have one code.

 

Jones asked the Board about the idea of a joint session for the Boards.

 

Queen said he didn’t know how much could be accomplished.

 

Jones stated that the Mechanical Board has met with the Fire Marshal.

 

Porter stated that the Mechanical board has requested to meet with the Building Code Board. The request was in the minutes of the City Commission.

 

Stogsdill stated that he has no problem meeting with the Mechanical Board.  He would like some kind of idea of what they would like to discuss.  The Building Code Board disagrees with the path they have chosen. He feels the two boards should be able to meet halfway.  He feels that the Mechanical Board should provide the amendments to blend the codes.  The Building Board does not have knowledge of mechanical issues.

 

Queen stated that the two Code bodies are going to join in three years; why not adopt a single code now instead of this blended mess?

 

Craft stated that it strikes him as almost unbelievable that the process has bogged down to this point. To what degree does the City Commission know how bogged down the boards are and how it looks like we’re not going anywhere?  There are still issues to resolve that look almost irresolvable. Should the Board somehow try to communicate this to the Commission in a clear way?  This jury is at a stalemate.

Jones stated that up until a few days ago he was under the impression that the Commission had received the report and was aware of the issues. He believes that with the resignation of the City Manager, code issues have been pushed back on the agenda. 

 

Craft asked if the report was presented at a commission meeting.

 

Jones stated that he believed that it was presented through the City Managers office. Jones said when he finds out more information he will forward it to the Board.

 

Queen stated that nobody wants these changes more than Torres. He must be frustrated that things are bogged down.

 

Jones said that a copy of the report is not something that has to be presented at the next board meeting. As soon as he has a copy of the report he will deliver it to the Board.

 

Craft stated that he feels that if he is going to volunteer his time he wants to feel as though he is accomplishing something. He feels as though he has become part of the bureaucracy that is bogged down and not getting anything done. How can we get things moving?  Are we part of the problem? 

 

Porter said that the Board needs to get the information from Jones at the next meeting, if there are no major issues with the 2006 IBC and 2006 IRC and if the Fire Code Board has no problems with the 2006 Fire Code, then he would say that the Board recommend to the Commission adoption of the 2006 I-Code Family. Based on the Boards review the codes are so closely tied together that anything else is going to be a problem.  He believed that by making that recommendation the Board is not overstepping its bounds. The reason the Board is not overstepping i’s bounds is that there is good reason to say that the codes cannot be adopted piecemeal.  The Board should just send that recommendation to the Commission.

 

Craft agreed, but asked how would the Board know if that would move the process along or not slow the progress even more?  He would like to get something done and adopt a new set of codes and those Codes be the ones that everyone starts to build under.

 

Porter asked if the Board wanted to adopt the 2006 IECC without the rest of the I-Codes.

 

Queen stated that the Building Board has done its job with the IRC and IBC.  The Board is now trying to work on the Energy Code.

 

Stogsdill replied that the IRC and IBC must be in place before the rest of the Codes are adopted.

 

Queen suggested that the Board meet in a month. Jones will have provided the new code books. The Board will know in a matter of minutes which path the Board will go as far as which code cycle.  At that point the Board resumes work on the 2006 IECC with a localized prescriptive method that deals with the issues that have been discussed.  In one or two meeting the Board will be in a position to say to the Commission that it recommend adoption of the 2006 IRC, 2006 IBC and 2006 Energy Code with amendments.  One step at a time.

 

Review of the Energy Code

 

Jones said that covering the ducts with insulation is not going to work.  The only way that would work would be if the mechanical contractors drastically altered their current installation practices.  Jones said that he has made note of every mechanical installation where flex duct is in the attic since the last board meeting. In most installations one fourth or less of the duct lie flat enough to be covered by blown-in insulation.

 

Porter stated to offer the contractors a choice of putting in R-8 ducts or put in R-6 and make sure half of it’s covered.

 

Queen said let’s get a section of R-8 duct to see what it looks like. All of the discussion may be a moot point.  We really don’t know the price or how difficult it is to install.   

 

Craft stated that the windows for sale at Home Depot meet all of the current code requirements.  A decent sized window costs for $100. The point is energy efficient components are coming down in price.

 

The Board discussed the heat loss calculations presented by Porter.

 

Porter determined that by not insulating the slab it was equivalent to putting another 68 square feet of windows on a 30 by 50 house, or 8 million BTU heat loss.  If half of the duct is covered by insulation it does not matter if the duct is R-6 or R-8.

 

The Board reviewed the pictures of attic duct installations.

 

Queen noted that the ducts could be installed lower to the ceiling and did not have to be stretched so tightly.

 

Jones replied that the contractors use hard pipe insulated with flex duct if the run is over 15 feet. The hard pipe is usually attached to the trunk line.

 

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