City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

Meeting

June 28^th, 2007 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, John Craft,  Mike Porter,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF  PRESENT:
Guess Present :
Ex-Officio	Adrian Jones
Attachments

Meeting called to order at 11:43

Review minutes from meeting 6-14-07

Porter motioned to accept the minutes as written.  Seconded by Queen. Motion passed 5-0. 

Discuss 2006 International Residential Code section M1502.6 Maximum Duct Length

Jones stated that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board section M1502.6 Maximum duct length because it had building design implications. The Mechanical Board has recommended amending this section by eliminating the exception that allows the use of dryer manufacturers duct length recommendations.  Jones said that it has been the practice of Building Safety division to use this exception in the code when necessary to allow slightly longer dryer duct lengths. It has been his experience through research of dryer specifications that almost all dryer manufacturers allow duct lengths that exceed the prescriptive requirement of the Code.  The code allows for the maximum dryer 25ft with a reduction 5 ft. for every 90 degree turn.   

Queen said that almost every dryer has a 90 degree bend going into the wall. That means the maximum length would be 20 feet.

Craft said in a two story home with a basement that would prevent a dryer being placed in the basement. 

Queen said the original home owner may have a dryer that can push the length of the duct but a subsequent owner may have a substandard dryer.  Queen says he agrees with the mechanical board on this amendment.

Stogsdill asked if an appeal came in on this issue who would hear the appeal. He said that if the Mechanical Board was to hear the appeal then he would go with the judgment of the Mechanical Board. But if this issue was to go before the building board he would leave the exception in.

Smalter asked why Stogsdill would support leaving the exception in.

Stogsdill replied that exception has been in the code through many code cycles. There must be a good reason why it’s in the code. There has obviously been some reports and studies as to why this not a problem.  Dryer manufacturers are coming along in that direction. It just gives people more options.

Jones said this provision has been in the Uniform Code and International Code for as long as he can remember and most likely for good reason. It gives building designers and code officials flexibility. 

Queen said that he believes the Mechanical Board was most likely following his line of reasoning. If he has a powerful dryer that will push 70 feet, then the next home owner has a cheap low powered dryer then there may be a problem.

Stogsdill asked Jones if he asked for dryer information.

Jones said that he has asked for dryer information. Duct length can quickly exceed what is allowed by code if the laundry room is not located on an exterior wall. The only way to comply with the prescriptive code requirements in some instances would be to reframe the house.  Jones said that he has spent many hours researching dryer length. He has gone to appliance stores and read dryer installation booklets and researched the topic online.  As he said earlier, most modern dryers will allow exhaust ducts that exceed the prescriptive requirement of the code.  The code gives the flexibility to except longer duct.  He never allowed excessive lengths, but has required booster fans on a few occasions where the only option would be to reframe load bearing walls.

Stogsdill asked if most manufacturers meet the requirement.

Jones said that they did.

Stogsdill said that he feels this amendment is being overly conservative. If dryer manufacturers are pushing 30 feet plus and the building code allowed for the exception then he feels the amendment is tying the hands of designers and installers. There must be evidence to support the exception.

Craft asked if Jones knew what the Mechanical Boards reasoning for the amendment.

Queen read the minutes from the Mechanical Board. “Wyatt’s concern is that the code is a minimum standard and the minimum standard is not even being met. Wyatt suggested that the City discontinue the longer allowed run. The Board agreed to recommend following the letter of the Code.  The Board was concerned about the exception that allows the longer length when the maker of the dryer is known, but the next home owner’s dryer may not meet the same allowance.”

Stogsdill said that if someone came in with an exhaust duct that was 26 feet or 28 feet they were up the creek now because the amendment removed any flexibility. Their only option would be to come before this Board for an appeal.

Jones said that he believed the Mechanical Board would hear an appeal.

Stogsdill said that if the Mechanical Board was going to hear the appeal then it’s not the decision of this board to rule on this amendment.

Jones said that the administrative ordinance required the Mechanical Board to hear appeals on issues related to mechanical systems.

Craft said that he would like to get that cleared up for sure.

Jones read the section 5-111.17 “In order to hear and decide appeals of orders decisions or determinations made by the building official relative building construction not related to plumbing, electrical or mechanical systems, there shall be and is hereby created a Building Code Board of Appeals.”

Porter said that if the Building Code Board is not going to be responsible for the mechanical section of the Code he feel that the Board is obligated to go along with the guidance of the Mechanical Board.

Queen said that he has built many houses and he has not had a problem getting a dryer vent out where he had to provide documentation to Jones to pass an inspection.

Stogsdill said that occasionally there is a difficulty in townhomes and duplexes when the laundry room is sitting in interior spaces because of tight floor plans. It does become an issue from time to time.  I think you will begin to see some less than desirable dryer locations.

Craft asked if a motion was even necessary.

Porter said that the Building Code was forwarding the IRC to the Commission.

Stogsdill asked if the Board was only recommending the building portion of the code.

Porter said that he thought that had changed.  The Building Board recommends adoption of the IRC. The other boards include their amendments to the code. 

Porter motion to accept the guidance of the Mechanical Board relative to this amendment.  Seconded by Queen.  Motion passed 5-0.

Discuss 2006 International Residential Code section R802.11.1 Roof Uplift Resistance  

Jones explained that staff would like the Board to consider an amendment to section R802.11.1.  Staff believes the code should be amended to require all new single family homes have rafters and roof truss attached to wall assemblies by connections capable of providing resistance as required in table R802.11.  It is in the opinion of staff that for the minimum cost involved and given the history of high wind events here in the City of Lawrence this would be a reasonable amendment to the Code. 

Queen asked if the section was basically requiring hurricane clips.

Jones explained that based on the basic wind speed area, wind exposure zone and the height of residential structures, most new single family homes would not require uplift resistance connections.

Craft said there were further complications in that the section being amended also requires a continuous load path designed to transmit the uplift forces from the rafters or truss ties to the foundation.

Queen said that in a normally constructed home that load path is built into the house through the sheathing and anchor bolts. 

Jones said that was correct.  The rafters or truss connected to the top plate with clips. The sheathing provides a path through to the bottom plate which is anchored to the foundation.

Craft asked if anchor bolts 6’ on center were adequate to provide resistance for the additional uplift forces.

Porter asked if hurricane clips was a common construction practice.

Smalter replied that it was not.

Queen said that he uses truss roofs on about every house and puts clips on the trusses.  He said the clips are about 7 cents each but it takes a carpenter a couple of hours to put them on.

Smalter said that she did not have a problem amending the code. She is concerned that if the Board requires hurricane clips to meet the 20 pound uplift requirement, the next question will be why the board didn’t require all of the prescriptive elements of the Code to meet that requirement. 

Porter said the Board, by recommending this amendment, is saying that according to the calculations Lawrence is currently at 16 pounds of uplift pressure,  let’s just take out that exception that require all homes over 20 pounds to comply, and put the clips on.

Queen asked what type of roof assembly would get you to an uplift pressure of 20 pounds.

Jones said the mean height of the roof would have to be greater than 35 feet, which could not be possible because the maximum roof height in Lawrence is only 35 feet, and the house would have to be in open terrain. There would be very few instances here in Lawrence where uplift resistance connections would be required. Most areas in Lawrence would fall into the wind exposure B category.

Queen said that during the tornado in Oklahoma they found that homes on the periphery of the tornado that were built to these standards withstood the damage and were able to be repaired. The ones that didn’t have these tie downs were flattened. Homes closer to the tornados that were built better survived. There is data that proves these types of construction methods work.

Jones said it is a common belief that no amount wind resistant construction will save a home from a tornado. What people don’t understand is that homes 200 or 300 feet from the tornado are affected by the inflow winds. It’s these homes that benefit from these types construction methods and tornados are not the only type of wind events. 

Craft said that he agrees with Smalter in that if the amendment puts Lawrence in the 20 pound per square foot uplift category what other code provisions are required.

Porter said the designed continuous load path should not be an issue. It you tie the truss or rafter to the top plate there would be a load path to the foundation.

Stogsdill stated that section 802.10.5 required all roof trusses to be tied down. In essence the only issue here is tying rafters to top plates.  

Smalter noted that according to the code every single truss or rafter would have to be tied down.

Porter noted the truss should be tied down according to the manufacturer.  

Smalter said on a stick framed roof every single rafter will have to be tied down.

Stogsdill asked if there was a reason to make the code more stringent for this requirement.

Queen noted that more than half of the houses are built with trusses.

Smalter stated that in most cases roofs are built with a combination of truss and stick framed.

Stogsdill said that recommending clips would be a good idea but to making the code more stringent without just cause is not really fair.  If the code was written with a lot of research and data he doesn’t want to second guess it.  Can the Board make everything more stringent?  Absolutely.  But I disagree with going through the code, picking out items, and saying we’re going to make this tougher and that tougher because we think it’s a good thing.  The board needs to specifically stay with the code unless there is a good reason to modify.

Craft noted that by examining table R802.11 roof over hangs can add significant uplift pressure.

Stogsdill agreed and added that those structures with large overhangs and porch roofs should have tie downs.

Jones said each house would be different and the architect may have to spec roof tie downs. Staff will have to check for that during plan review.

Queen said that he agrees with Stogsdill in that it should be a recommended practice but not a required one.

The Boards consensus was that it recommends that roofs be attached to the supporting walls per table R802.11 to provide uplift resistance but does not recommend amending the Code to require it.    

Complete discussion on amendments for 2006 IRC

Jones said the Board left off discussion at the last meeting on the topic of concrete encased ductwork and mechanical plans for single family residential.

Stogsdill said that absolutely disagrees with the amendment to require mechanical plans for single family residential. He thinks that would be a significant change.

Queen said that the City’s adoption of the Energy Code is requiring the mechanical contractor’s to provide a Manual J calculation. What the Mechanical Board has done is to go one step further and recommend that a drawing be provided and placed on the jobsite showing the size of length of each trunk line and duct run.

Jones said Queen was right. The Energy Code requires the mechanical systems be sized to make efficient use of energy. A system that is oversized is wasteful and a system that is undersized is wasteful. The City as part of the plan review process will review the J sheet to determine if the system has been properly sized.  The documentation for sizing of equipment is typically called a J sheet because it is produced using the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) J Manual.  Information such as climate zone, building insulation, building orientation and the amount of glazing is considered when sizing mechanical equipment. Typically Manual J sizing is done using computer software programs. These programs produce what is called a J sheet.  The J sheet is required to verify compliance with the Energy Code.  ACCA also produces Manual D. Manual D has standards for air duct installation and sizing. The code requires air ducts to be sized in accordance with Manual D or other approved method.  The document that shows duct sizes, lengths and air flow rates is commonly called a D sheet.  The Mechanical Board has recommended amending the code to require mechanical contractors to provide a J sheet and D sheet as part of the plan review documents and that both should be on the jobsite with the building plans.  

Porter said that it seems that by providing this information it will prevent contractors from underbidding another contractor by installing systems that are undersized.

Queen said he feels this is not an issue that should be addressed by the Board.  If he as a builder has a problem with this amendment mechanical contractors will say he just does not want to pay the extra cost to the contractor to comply with this provision. He has discussed this with several reputable mechanical contractors that have been around for a long time. They all think it is a waste of time. They think the contractors who are doing it right will continue to do so.  This in the end may be a benefit by leveling the playing field.

Porter said that what he reads from this is that as long as the contractors who are making these calculations continue to do so he doesn’t have a problem with this amendment.

Queen said the problem is that it will add to the cost of a single family home and presently many contractors are sizing equipment by making educated guesses because they have experience and they know how to do it.  Now they have to sit down at a computer for an hour and a half and type up these J and D sheets, then drive across town and give to me, which I have to present to Jones with my plans. Time is money.

Jones said that he supports this amendment.  When he was the ex-officio member of Mechanical Board it tried unsuccessfully to push through Manual J sizing.  

There has been a problem with duct and equipment sizing. After a home is built it’s too costly to correct improperly sized equipment or ductwork.  Increasing the fan speed is not always the answer.  That is a big problem to dump on the owner of a new single family home.  The equipment runs constantly trying to keep up with the heating and cooling loads wasting energy and costing money.

Porter said that he’s living in house like that. The system was poorly designed.

Queen said that he told the mechanical contractors that if they did not like this amendment they were going to have to go before the Mechanical Board and say we shouldn’t do this and why.  It will have to come from the mechanical contractors.

Smalter asked what happens if a general contractor changes mechanical contractors and uses the calculations of another contractor. Who does the liability fall on?

Jones said that as far as the City is concerned as long as the calculations are correct and the new contractor is licensed there would not be any compliance issues.

Smalter asked if the system had to be sized by an architect of engineer. Because if that is what is going to be required then her clients are not going to want to accept that cost.

Queen said his examination of the code leads him to believe that the D sheet can be on a sheet of notebook paper.  Queen said that he initially thought this would require an architect to draw this up on the plans.

Porter said he thinks the Mechanical Board looked at this and said that since the Code requires Manual J sizing, then we want everyone to do this.  He thinks this is acceptable.

Craft said that if the systems has to be designed according to the Code then why not have a drawing that shows they complied.

The Board consensus was that the Building Board should leave it alone.

Discuss Manifest Injustice

Jones said that staff would like the Board to review section 5-111.17.1 of the Administrative Ordinance. This section allows the Board to grant an appeal if it feels that a “manifest injustice” might be done. It is staff’s opinion that this amendment is in direct conflict with the code provision that limits the authority of the Board to be empowered to waive requirements of the Code.

Porter said that the Board appreciates staff’s position on the issue.

Queen said that he feels just as strongly that the language should continue to be part of the code. The one time that the Board used the clause he feels it was the only fair thing to do, and it worked out for the best.

Discussion of the IEBC, IECC and IRC draft ordinances

Porter motioned to recommend adoption of the draft ordinances of the 2006 International Residential Code, 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, 2006 International Existing Building Code and Chapter 5 Article 1 Ordinance adopting the Administrative provisions.  Seconded by Smalter.  Motion passed 5-0.  

Discuss IBC Appendix J Grading     

Jones gave an update on information requested by the Board at the last meeting. The Board wanted to know if there were currently any ordinances that regulated grading. Jones said he spoke to the City of Lawrence storm water engineer Matt Bond.  Mr. Bond advised that the City did not have any general grading regulations. Mr. Bond reviewed appendix J and supported adoption of that appendix. Staff also supported the appendix. Jones stated that staff also supports inclusion of Appendix J into the building Code

Queen stated that he would like to do more research on the topic before adopting the appendix.

Craft suggested inviting the storm water engineer to a board meeting to discuss the amendment and tell the Board why he was in favor of the appendix.

Stogsdill suggested hearing input from RD Johnson.

Meeting adjourned 12:55