July 30, 2007 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Jim Sparkes, Bryan Wyatt, Gary Mohr, Kevin Chaney |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Mark Jarboe |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Bill Schweitzer, IAPMO; Wayne Duncan, Paul Oehlert, Jay Woodward, ICC; Sid Zeigler, Bobbie Flory, LHBA |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
None
Patrick O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:38 p.m.
After review, Mohr made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Wyatt, pass 4-0.
Review for acceptance draft ordinance adopting 2006 IMC
Chaney opened up the floor for public comment before reviewing the draft ordinance.
Paul Oehlert began public comment by asking about the new requirements for equipment and duct sizing and stated he didn’t see the need to require additional paperwork since there could be several different ways to size the mechanical equipment and even with sizing the mechanical equipment, one could not satisfy every customer.
Chaney replied there have always been requirements for sizing systems for plumbing and electrical and there should be requirements for sizing the mechanical. The mechanical board had been discussing the issue of sizing for quite some time and had not heard any input from other people. He also stated the requirements are in the International code and the board had agreed there should be a minimum standard for sizing.
Oehlert asked if any other jurisdiction that has adopted the International Codes were requiring this.
Chaney responded he did not know of any other jurisdiction that had the same requirements.
Oehlert also stated he was not aware of any jurisdictions that were enforcing the sizing in the same manner as the City(of Lawrence).
Mohr responded the sizing requirements are a minimum standard. The board is asking for some documentation to back up what system was installed. Mohr also stated he was not sure why anybody has a concern about the additional requirements.
Oehlert stated there would be additional costs involved in the process.
Wayne Duncan stated he will have to have someone to perform the load calculations that he doesn’t have now.
Mohr responded the board is not asking contractors to hire an engineer to design the duct systems, only to do a simple calculation to determine the size of a homes’ mechanical system.
Oehlert stated he has a program to calculate the loads, but he does not trust it because based on his experience, the program does not calculate it correctly. He asked how the inspection staff will be able to look at the calculations at plan review and determine whether they are correct. He stated each program may size the system differently.
Sparkes stated the sizing of the mechanical system will help get everyone on the same playing field with a shop drawing, so the homeowner has some kind of recourse if their system isn’t performing properly. He also stated with the way it is now, it is more like “buyer beware”.
Oehlert stated he was all for setting a standard for everyone to follow, but his main concern was the added cost to the homeowner. It is just one more thing the homeowner will have to pay for.
Chaney stated the sizing requirements will be new for everyone and will add work to the contractor and that will take some getting used to.
Sid Zeigler stated he supported the effort to place contractors on a level playing field, but stated the standards proposed are too complicated. There could be simple rules applied to mechanical systems that are similar to plumbing systems. He suggested that the City could place a limit on the size of house could be before a second system would be required.
Chaney stated requiring a second system would cost substantially more than sizing one system using the “J sheet” and the “D sheet”.
Mohr stated sizing plumbing is not really “rule of thumb”, the repetitive nature of sizing a plumbing system does not require checking a sizing chart on every project. Sizing mechanical systems has too many variables to have an oversimplified sizing method.
Ziegler also mentioned conventional sizing methods would not work properly on building systems such as Insulated Concrete Form walls with high R-values. He also suggested on larger homes and less conventional style homes should be required to be engineered.
Chaney responded there was talk amongst the board to require all mechanical systems to be engineered, but the board agreed the costs would be significant and to allow the contractors to design the systems. He also stated contractors generally have a few similar floor plans that are built repeatedly and can rely on the original sizing calculation and be able to change a few of the variables and not have to recalculate every house.
Bobbie Flory suggested since the code had provisions to allow other approved methods, instead of focusing on specifically the “Manual J”.
Mohr responded if “other” methods were not specific, then he would suggest requiring sizing to be designed using ASHRAE based load calculations.
Flory also pointed out the sizing calculations do not include the fact there may be a correctly designed system that is working correctly, but the system may not meet the expectations of the consumer.
Chaney agreed, and there should be at least a minimum standard to try to address a majority of the expectations.
Mohr clarified the issue was not a Uniform versus International Codes, the Uniform Code also requires “Manual J” calculations. He added the code has always required load calculations, the board was attempting to make it more enforceable.
Flory stated another concern was the requirement of the load calculations to be submitted at the time of permit application. She asked if there was a change in the plans during construction, would the calculations need to be resubmitted.
Staff responded any time there is a change in the approved plans there should be a submittal given to the City for review and proper documentation.
Ziegler asked about turning in an “as-built” drawing be submitted after the system is installed in the event there may be changes made in the design of the system. He also asked about how existing homes and remodels would be reviewed and if they would require a load calculation for the entire house.
Chaney responded there would need to be a calculation to ensure an existing system could accommodate an addition or if the system would need to be upgraded or added onto.
Oehlert asked how unfinished basements and unfinished second floor room would be evaluated if they may be finished at a later date, would that be allowed or would the system need to be designed for the existing finished space.
Staff responded most basements would not add to the existing load of the house and they are already partially conditioned so there would not be any additional requirements. A “bonus” room above the garage would require additional provisions to accommodate the additional loads. If the system is designed to accommodate the “bonus” room, the plans could indicate a future finish.
Sparkes stated there has been enough concern with the performance of the systems in the past that they need to be addressed.
Mohr stated the requirements have not been changed, the part that has changed is there is a requirement of the calculations be submitted to make the requirements enforceable.
Oehlerts’ concern is what happens if the calculations are done wrong.
Mohr responded if it is done wrong, the contractor would have documentation showing the design and may have less liability if a problem arose.
Flory again pointed out the language of the code allows for “other approved methods”.
Wayne Duncan asked who was going to check the calculations and the design to verify the calculations have been done correctly.
Chaney asked staff if the City has decided who was going to check the calculations.
Staff stated inspectors will compare the duct design with what has been installed in the house and verify the two are similar.
Duncan asked what would happen if the duct design is submitted with the permit application, then for some reason the duct system has to be installed differently, they would have to do a second drawing showing the changes. He also stated he works in other jurisdictions that are regulated by the International code and there are not any other jurisdictions that require the provisions that are proposed. He is not opposed to the guidelines, but is opposed to requiring the design at permit application. There are too many variables when designing the duct system and is typically not performed until the system is installed.
Chaney suggested requiring the load calculation and duct design before the rough-in inspection.
Duncan asked if the board was receiving complaints about poor performing systems.
Chaney responded the board has not received complaints, but as a contractor, yes he receives complaints all the time. Typically what his company does when they receive a complaint about airflow that another contractor has installed, they just give the customer a solution and fix the problem instead making assumptions about what the other contractor has done. He continued with the code as it is, the language does not give specific provisions to require the load calculations to be submitted for verification. Mohr suggested requiring the calculations before the rough-in instead of at permit application.
The board agreed.
Chaney agreed and to await suggestions of alternative design methods for the next meeting. He asked staff if that would work from an inspector standpoint.
Staff confirmed.
Mohr asked Flory if the homebuilders were planning on submitting alternative methods for load calculations.
Flory replied she would rely on the expertise of the mechanical contractors to work on submitting alternative methods to bring back to the board.
Chaney stated it was time to have a minimum standard for the mechanical systems.
Wyatt stated there were also advantages pertaining to energy provisions because he could install a 16 seer high efficiency system and if the duct system is not designed correctly the efficiency of the system will suffer.
Chaney pointed out the requirement of installing a 90% furnace in a slab home when slab edge insulation is not used was amended by the Building Board and not the Mechanical Board.
Ziegler stated he appreciated the work the board has been doing and understands there is a lot of work involved in representing the board.
Wyatt stated the board has a function to make amendments as they see fit and then it is up to staff to enforce the provisions to the best of their ability.
Mohr asked staff if the board should give guidance on what type of design methods could be approved.
Staff stated it would be beneficial to have a guideline on what type of methods to accept.
Jay Woodward stated the “Manual J” is just one method to calculate the loads.
Oehlert asked when the new codes might be adopted.
Staff responded the target enforcement date is January 1, 2008.
Wyatt stated he would like to see more contractors attend the meetings to provide input on what they see out in the field.
Chaney moved to accept the draft ordinance adopting the 2006 IMC. Seconded by Mohr. Pass 4-0.
Miscellaneous
Chaney stated he would like to make sure all board members are present when they vote on the codes to alleviate any problems with votes at the Commission level.
Wyatt suggested having all board members respond to e-mail confirming they will be in attendance. He also asked to be sensitive to the fact the at-large position is more difficult to fill and it took a year to fill it last time.
The board agreed.
Motion to adjourn made by Mohr, seconded by Wyatt, passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.