City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

March 29th, 2007 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

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

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

 

Guess Present :

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones

Attachments

 

1. Appendix F Radon Control Methods

 

 

 

Meeting Called to Order 11:44

 

Review Minutes from meeting 3-1-07

 

Porter made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Queen. Motion passed

4-0.

 

Review amendment to Appendix F Radon Control Methods

Jones stated that he was finding it difficult to draft to an amendment for including a rough in for an active system. He was unsure of exactly how to draft the wording of the amendments.  Jones said that as he examined the code text it became apparent that to simply include language that allowed a simple rough in of an underground “T” would not offer the reader a clear intent of the proposed amendment.  Jones also noted the amendment as he understood it was to allow for the future installation of an active system.  Sections AF103.8 and AF103.12 contained language for vent pipe and power source to be accessible for future installation of and active system in the future.   

 

Queen said that the code is directing contractors to install a circuit in the attic for connecting a fan to the vent pipe in the attic.  The Board is saying the circuit should be available in the basement or where the pipe is exiting.

 

Porter said the code language seems to be a reasonable requirement.

 

Stogsdill said the whole thrust of the amendment is to provide for an active system to be installed in the future. To have that passive system adaptable to be changed to an active system you need to have a power source available where a fan will be installed. In situations where a rooftop fan is installed no access to the attic is required.

 

Queen asked why the fan needed to be on its own circuit. Jones said he didn’t know but would ask the electrical inspector.  He suspected that it was because it was a continuously running motor. 

Craft said that he thought the fan needed to be at the terminal portion of the system to ensure that the vent pipe was always under negative pressure.  If the fan was placed immediately after the “T” the remainder of the vent system would be under positive pressure.

 

Stogsdill said that the Board never received any information about exactly how an active system was installed.  The requirements for an active system were not in the code, specifically where to locate the vent termination of an active system.

 

Craft asked if openings are required to be sealed per section AF103.4.1. How would that be accomplished in an active system?  In a retro fit how would openings be sealed?  

 

Stogsdill asked if active systems would require openings to be sealed.

 

Porter replied that he didn’t think openings were required to be sealed in an active system.

 

Queen said he thought that by not sealing all openings it allowed the subslab system to draw air and pull through as opposed to pulling air out of a sealed system.

 

Stogsdill said that the problem as he sees it is that if a homeowner needs to attach onto the roughed in system there might be no place to terminate the system that would comply with code.     

 

Porter suggested that the board invite an expert on an active system installation to provide information to the Board. This would give the Board a better understanding in order to accurately draft an amendment to the code. 

 

Jones said that he would invite Bruce Snead. Mr. Snead is the Mayor of Manhattan and an extension Specialist with the KDHE Kansas Radon Program.

 

Discuss City Commission Meeting 3-13-07

 

Jones stated that the Commission directed the trade boards to adopt the International Family of Codes.  Jones said that Craft wanted the item on the agenda to address some statements made at the Commission meeting.

 

Craft stated that as he watched the meeting he was very concerned that some of the statements made by the Chairman of the Mechanical Board were not entirely accurate. Craft’s concern was that those statements were now part of the public record. Craft asked the Board if it had responsibility to address the Commission and say “These are the facts.”

 

Stogsdill stated that the Board is finally in a position where it wanted to be with the Codes.  It was frustrating not to have been in this position three years ago.  We need to close that wound and move forward.

 

Craft said that he agrees. He said that it was right after the meeting when he asked Jones to include this item on the agenda.  

 

Jones said that Victor Torres has directed staff liaisons to move forward and remain positive concerning the decision of the Commission. He said Torres directed staff liaisons to be as helpful and facilitating as possible to the Boards.  The number one goal is to carry out the directive of the Mayor and Commission and get the new codes adopted as soon as possible.

 

The Board agreed. 

 

Craft said that the only other concern he has is the timetable that was presented at the Commission meeting. He believes that in six months all the Code should be adopted and in place.  If the Boards can’t get this done in six months then someone is dragging their feet.   

 

Stogsdill stated that this Board needs to determine where it is as far as the adoption process with the Codes.

 

Jones said that the Board has completed its review of the 2006 Energy Code and the 2006 International Residential Code with the exception of the Radon Appendix.  The Board needs to review the changes from the 2003 IBC to the 2006 IBC.  That should only take one meetings. This Board should be finished in two or three meetings.

 

The Board reviewed and discussed its progress to date on the International Residential code, International Building Code and International Energy Conservational Code.   

 

Queen said the Home Builders Association has received the Johnson County Building Officials alternate methods of construction for chapter 4 of the IRC foundation wall construction.  He said the proposal was much more detailed than he expected. Their detail shows designs for garage floors and foundation walls. He said it is basically the way to do concrete in Johnson County. He noted that the section that covers foundation walls is very specific.  It requires a buttress every 16 feet.  The buttress has to be two thirds the height of the wall, and it has to be on the outside.  This seems to be exactly what the board discussed at the last meeting.  The only exception being that the Johnson County requirements still contain the blocking requirements for floor joist.

 

Smalter asked what issues the Johnson County detail resolves.

 

Queen replied that it resolves the requirement for anchor bolts every 7”, having to put the subfloor on before the basement is backfilled, and three rows of blocking on each side of the house.

 

Smalter questioned how a buttress on the outside of the foundation 16’ on center could solve replace all those prescriptive elements.

 

Queen said he has never seen a foundation wall with problems where buttresses were used, the floor was poured and waiting a week before backfilling.  Queen said that he believes the Home builders could simplify Johnson County’s design and produce something easier to use. 

 

Smalter asked how the buttresses would work with setbacks.

 

Queen said that it be no different than window wells. Window wells are below grade and not subject to setback requirements.  

 

Stogsdill asked Jones how the City was enforcing egress window wells.  

 

Jones replied that he was hesitant to answer because he was not that familiar with the new development code, but he would find out and get an answer.    

 

Porter motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Craft motion passed 5-0.   

 

Meeting Adjourned 12:30