December 6, 2006 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jim Sparkes, Bryan Wyatt, Kevin Chaney, Gary Mohr |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Bill Schweitzer, IAPMO |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
None
Patrick O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:46 p.m.
Sparkes mentioned that it was brought to his attention that “construction language” being used is not appropriate for meetings being conducted by representatives of the City of Lawrence and asked board members to refrain from such language.
Discuss review of mechanical section of the 2006 IRC
Staff stated that the request from Sparkes to have a representative from ICC attend a meeting was such short notice that it will have to be scheduled at a later date.
Sparkes began the discussion stating that he had talked to other tradesmen and they had said that the IRC was written by a builder so they could say that a house was built by code but that was at the bottom of the list. He also mentioned that he was told that the plumbing venting was sized differently in the IRC causing loud systems and improper venting. He mentioned that he spoke with the Chairman from the Plumbing Board at their last meeting voted unanimously that they didn’t want the International.
Wyatt asked Sparkes if they were talking about the IRC? Since it was not necessarily the International issue, the Building Board was asking the board to look at the IRC and if the IRC would interfere with the Mechanical portion or it would have to be amended out. The Building board was asking if they could leave the mechanical portions and have the Mechanical board make amendments.
Chaney stated that at the last meeting, Adrian Jones wanted the IRC for residential and the UMC for commercial, he didn’t say use the UMC for residential.
Wyatt stated that his understanding was that the IRC was designed for residential and that the UMC was designed more for commercial.
Staff responded that the Building Board was requesting the trade boards review their appropriate sections to see if their portions could be amended and be included into the IRC ordinance.
Sparkes mentioned a concern he had in Section R104 about the code official having the authority to make interpretations of the code and that different jurisdictions could have varying interpretations, he mentioned one of the Douglas County inspectors, and asked the board if the inspector was nit picking or not.
Chaney stated that the county was more strict on enforcement.
Mohr stated that in most jurisdictions that the final say is typically by the building official.
Staff responded that the same language is contained in section 108 of the Uniform Mechanical Code.
Schweitzer mentioned that the administrative chapters of the IRC came from the IMC and IPC. He questioned why the board was even looking at the IRC. The duct sizing still references the Manual J just like the UMC does.
Wyatt stated that he was asked by the Building Board to revisit the issue of the IRC, although the Mechanical Board had done a comparison of the IMC and the UMC and decided that the UMC was more stringent. Since there was interaction between the different trades and the building codes, that it would be prudent to at least look at the different codes such as the energy code because it will affect the mechanical trade. He would like the Mechanical Board to be involved in decisions that will affect the mechanical trades.
Sparkes stated that if the ICC is interested in selling the International Code, then get someone down here from ICC to answer the questions they have.
Mohr stated that ICC is not trying to sell a code, the city is attempting to move forward with the IRC trying to get it adopted. The only way to get the residential code adopted is to let them move forward with it and then if at a later date decide take out the mechanical, the board could do that. The urgency is to get the IRC adopted and move on.
Chaney mentioned that he had not had a chance to read the whole residential code but had seen that in the Uniform code, dryer vents are limited to 14 feet in length and in the IRC it is 25 feet. He asked if they already have the amendments for the Uniform code, why can’t they just put those into the residential code.
Staff stated that the dryer vent provisions in the two codes are similar they are just worded different. In the UMC, it allows 14 feet and two 90 degree elbows. The IRC allows 25 with no elbows, each 90 elbow added must reduce the length by five feet, so the difference is really only one foot.
Sparkes had a concern about gypsum products used as plenums as long as the air temperature did not exceed 125 degrees and there could be a concern that the high limit on most furnaces is 180 degrees.
Staff replied that there has never been an installation that gypsum products were used as supply ducts. Any use of gypsum products exposed in air ducts are exclusive to the return air.
Mohr stated that return air ducts or plenums are only for return air plenums. Mohr asked if the Building board could move forward without the mechanical sections without causing too many problems.
Wyatt stated that they would have to amend out the mechanical portions of the IRC.
Chaney stated that he would rather stick with the UMC and have them remove the mechanical from the IRC since the board was ready to move forward with the UMC. Chaney’s main concern is that if the board allows the IRC with the mechanical left in, and then continue with the UMC and adopt it, then the members of the inspection department will be in front of the Commission asking why the board is now adopting the UMC after they already have the IRC.
Wyatt stated that he is all for making the codes work together as smoothly as possible.
Chaney stated that he thought that the board is a couple months away from having the 2006 UMC adopted.
Mohr asked if the board would need to make a recommendation on what they needed to do, for instance if they decided to stay with the UMC.
Staff responded that the Building Board would amend it out of their ordinance. The Building Board was asking the Mechanical Board if it would be feasible to use the mechanical portions of the IRC, if not, they would amend it out.
Sparkes reminded the board that they voted 5-0 to move ahead with the UMC.
Wyatt stated that at that time, he never thought the Building Board would even be considering the energy code.
Sparkes stated that eventually the state will require energy standards.
Chaney made a motion to recommend mechanical portions of IRC to be removed. Seconded by Mohr. Pass 4-0.
A motion was made by Chaney to continue with finalization of review of 2006 UMC. Chaney stated that he wanted to acknowledge that they realize the ventilation requirements are now in the 2006 UMC so the concerns of the Building Board are addressed. He also stated that by this motion, it does not completely rule out the International.
Mohr asked if there was some place that documented the list of concerns the board had with the IMC.
Wyatt stated that his main concern is that if a contractor has a question, the question would have to be routed through the jurisdiction. A contractor could get an interpretation straight from IAPMO.
Chaney stated that there were multiple lengths and clearance differences. The Mechanical Board make-up which has been addressed. The multiple books the International code requires.
Wyatt stated that he didn’t think there was a huge difference between the two codes other than being able to contact IAPMO easier. Seconded by Wyatt. Pass 4-0.
Staff asked if there would be a possibility that the board would revisit the IRC.
Chaney responded that they would have to if they did not get a 5-0 vote on the 2006 UMC.
Mohr asked that if somehow the IMC was adopted, it would be logical to adopt the mechanical portions of the IRC.
Staff acknowledged.
Sparkes stated that he will continue to review the IRC and get the ICC person in to answer questions.
Mohr stated that he would like to have an ICC person in to answer questions before the final adoption of the UMC.
Chaney agreed.
Schweitzer asked if the board should make an amendment requiring the “J” sheet for all new houses?
Chaney said that was a good idea.
Wyatt stated that at this time the load calculation requirement is vague enough that it is unenforceable and would like to have something that will make it a requirement. He wants some kind of binding requirement that makes the contractor responsible for the performance of the duct system.
Miscellaneous
(The following item was mentioned by Wyatt during discussion of the above agenda item)Wyatt stated that he may have found a board member that lives down the street from him that sounded interested in serving as the at-large member, he will confirm that and have him send in a letter to the mayor.
Motion to adjourn made by Chaney, seconded by Mohr, passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.