May 12, 2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Bryan Wyatt, Kevin Chaney, Gary Mohr, Jim Sparkes |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Mark Jarboe |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Bill Schweitzer, IAPMO |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
None
Patrick O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Review and approve minutes from April 14, 2008
Wyatt requested one statement be removed where “Wyatt stated he recommended using Manual “J” and Manual “D” since it was stated earlier. Wyatt made a motion to approve the minutes as changed. Chaney seconded the motion. Pass 4-0.
Miscellaneous
Chaney mentioned a phone conversation he had with staff member Adrian Jones and the discussion pertained to small additions and whether or not a load calculation should be required. Chaney asked the board if there should be a minimum size that did not require the load calculation to be performed.
Mohr responded he would prefer to leave the determination up to City staff members. With a minimum size or a percentage, it would not be the same for additions to houses of widely varying sizes.
Chaney stated the best solution would be to install a separate system for the new addition.
Wyatt stated he would like to see something about the additions. He also mentioned the original intent of the amendment was to cover new construction and not remodels.
A new addition would also require a load calculation. He stated he would like to see City staff work on a standard to know when to require the load calculations.
Mohr stated the code requires the load calculations and it does not distinguish between remodels and new construction. The board only made it mandatory to submit the calculations.
Staff distributed a draft of an interpretations manual and an interpretation has been entered when and where load calculations are required. The interpretation is based on discussions by the board and staff.
There was discussion by the board about setting a maximum percentage of square footage that would be allowed before a load calculation was needed and Mohr stated he does not like the percentage because the existing system may already be at its limit.
Sparkes stated typically the furnace is oversized and the air conditioning is undersized to accommodate the airflow. It would also depend on whether the existing system was accessible.
Wyatt stated the original intent was for new construction and then in the future there should not be the performance problems. He is concerned when the walls are not changed and there is no way to get a good check of the materials behind the walls. An example would be changing a down flow system to an up flow system, the entire system is changed and no walls are touched.
Staff stated the language in the interpretation manual was taken from discussions the board has had and if something needs to be changed, it can be.
Wyatt stated he wants to make sure there is not a load calculation required for remodels where the house is not gutted. But if there was a fire and the house is gutted and the entire system replaced there should be a load calculation.
Mohr stated the example of a down flow being changed to an up flow would require a drawing of the ductwork (Manual D) and a load calculation.
Wyatt stated his concern was there was not a simple way calculate an accurate load without the walls being exposed.
Chaney responded a guess of what materials are used is better than just doing a square footage calculation.
Mohr stated on any complete system change out there should be a load calculation performed.
Wyatt stated then there should be plans submitted with the permit.
Sparkes stated the board is discussing two different issues and he agrees that additions should have a load calculation and if they use the existing system, the whole house will require a load calculation.
The board agreed with Sparkes’ statement.
Wyatt stated he disagreed with the idea of a load calculation for a complete system only change out because there was no way to get an accurate load calculation. But if a load calculation is required, there should be plans.
Mohr stated it would not be feasible to have architectural drawings for a change out, but there should be a manual D submitted.
Wyatt stated he thought there was not going to be drawings of the ductwork submitted which he would disagree with but he misunderstood and agrees that architectural drawings would not be required on a change out.
Mohr suggested removing the stipulation of “damaged by fire” and leave it at remodels when complete HVAC systems are changed out.
The board agreed.
Wyatt brought up a separate issue regarding the requirement for 13 seer equipment when the air conditioner only was changed that the coil needed to be changed or verify it would meet the 13 seer requirement. The City has been requiring all air conditioner changeouts must verify efficiency. He stated the original intent was only for a/c only changes to match up the existing coil. In a change out where all the equipment is changed, there should not be a certificate required because all new stuff will match up and meet the 13 seer efficiency requirement.
The board agreed.
Staff stated the practice was implemented to require a certificate for all a/c changeouts to reduce the amount of confusion when processing the permits. If the board decides the intent is for a/c only changeouts, the practice will be changed and placed in the interpretations manual.
Wyatt stated the inspection should verify if the coil is properly matched.
There was also a discussion regarding emergency changeouts that a permit must be pulled before the work is done. Staff stated code allows 48 hours to submit the permit application on an emergency change out.
Wyatt stated he was told by City staff that with email, fax, and voicemail there was no reason to not submit even on the weekends.
Staff stated that was incorrect and that requirement would go beyond the authority of the code and would return a clarification to the board.
Staff also informed the board there is an appeal that was just received today and the board would be receiving information on a date and time for the appeal.
Motion to adjourn made by Chaney, seconded by Mohr, pass 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.