City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

June 29th, 2006 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter Janet Smalter

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

John Craft

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Review minutes May 25th , 2006

Motion by Porter to accept minutes as written seconded by Stogsdill.  Motion passed 4-0.

 

Discuss APA Portal Frame Amendment   

 

Jones presented the information submitted by American Plywood Association (APA) field representative Vincent Ellebracht. Mr. Ellebracht is requesting that the Board consider an amendment to the 2006 IRC which would allow the garage portal design to be anchored on wood floors.  Currently the City has approved the portal design for garage doors and large openings.  The APA submitted the design to the International Code Council (ICC) Code Adoption Committee for inclusion as part of the 2006 International Residential Code.  The Code Committee denied the request. 

 

Porter moved the Board deny the amendment because the proponent had not provided sufficient information. 

 

Stogsdill asked what the difference was from the currently accepted design.

 

Jones explained that the main difference is the anchoring method.  The amendment would allow the portal frame on first and second floors.  The panels could be anchored to the rim board by diaphragm sheathing or an approved hold down device.  Jones said that the engineers at APA have calculated that the design could resist shear loads.

 

Porter stated that APA has not submitted any calculation to substantiate the claims. APA has gone before ICC and submitted the information. ICC rejected the design. APA has not submitted any information to the Board that would allow the Board to overrule ICC.   

 

Smalter stated that APA claims to have tested the design.

 

Queen stated that he would like to see testing information from an independent testing agency.

 

Porter stated that all the information submitted is from test performed by APA.

 

Porter stated he sees no reason to overrule ICC without sufficient data to review.

 

Porter stated 2006 IRC section 602.10.6.2 required a minimum 16” on the first floor of a two story, and 24” on a two story. 

 

Smalter stated that the proponent is asking for a 6:1 ratio on the second story.

 

Stogsdill stated that this may be an issue that the Board can review at a later date if it is more widely accepted in the industry. At this time he feels that there is insufficient data to support the proposal.

 

Queen said there is a motion to deny the request or does the Board want to table it until a later date. 

 

Queen said that he does not want to close the door on the idea if the APA has done the work just because they have not provided adequate information.

 

Porter said the Board could deny because there is not adequate information.

 

Porter made a motion to deny the proposed amendment to the IRC because of insufficient information, seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 4-0

 

Discussion on amendments to the Code

Jones advised the Board that the legal department has informed board liaisons that any amendments to the codes will have to include the amended text and all sub-sections.  The State requirement will have the effect of increasing the size of ordinances adopting new codes.  As an example the ordinance adopting the Electrical Code increased in size from 5 pages to 21 pages. 

 

Complete review of Energy Code

Stogsdill noted that at this point the remaining items to address on the Energy Code were the slab edge insulation and the air duct insulation. He asked if there was any more information to present to the board to make a decision.

 

Porter noted that the Board had agreed that R-6 flexible air duct could be allowed if more that 50% was covered by attic insulation.

 

Queen stated he believes that most of the time R-6 flexible air duct will be 100% covered by blown in attic insulation.

 

Jones stated his observation is that most flexible air duct in attics is run through rafter supports or truss.  Most flexible air duct is not covered by blown in insulation. 

 

Porter stated if the contractor can install the duct so that most of it is covered by blown in insulation then R-6 duct can be used.  If the duct is exposed then it must be R-8.

 

Smalter suggested the energy code issues be tabled until there was a full board present to vote on any resolutions.

 

Queen stated that he believes the requirement to use R-8 duct would be punishing contractors who performed clean installations.

 

Jones stated that there is no code requirement to run ductwork to allow coverage by blown in insulation. A neat installation can be run through the truss spaces.

 

Queen stated that a clean installation can be run down in the joist spaces and 9 out of 10 times it can be just as easy to do as sloppy work. The solution is not to raise the cost by requiring R-8 duct that can raise the cost of homes another $500.

 

Porter stated that understands Queens viewpoint but he tends to agree with Craft that by making small concessions on each component of the Energy Code it ends up watering down the whole code. 

 

The Board agreed to table the discussion of flexible air duct R-values until Craft was present.

 

The Board discussed slab insulation details. There was no consensus on an installation method that was practical and provided protection against termite infestation. The Board asked Jones to determine how other jurisdictions were enforcing the slab insulation.

 

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