May 29,
2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT: |
|
Bryan
Wyatt, Kevin Chaney, Gary Mohr, Jim Sparkes, Mark Jarboe |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS
ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST
PRESENT: |
|
Brett Mauthe, Dirk |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: EX-OFFICIO: |
|
Barry
Walthall, Building Safety Manager Patrick
O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Special Appeal meeting requested by
Chairman
Chaney recognized Bret Mauthe from Fairfield Development to open up the
discussion of the appeal. Mauthe began
by explaining the purpose of the appeal is to ask the board consider allowing
the exception that was amended from the code that allows the dryer vent length
to follow the dryer manufacturer’s installation instructions. The design of multi-family construction
configured along with party walls and breezeway corridors, bedrooms utilize the
majority of the outside wall space available thus pushing other rooms such as
utility rooms into the interior of the dwelling unit causing the longer dryer
vent length that will not be within compliance of the code as written without
utilizing the exception.
Wyatt
asked staff if the dryer vent lengths meet the manufacturer’s installation
instructions.
Staff
responded there was one type unit that did not meet the manufacturer’s
instructions, but the appellant submitted a redesign that did meet the
installation instructions.
Wyatt
asked if the appellant is requesting the board to include the exception back
into the code.
Staff
affirmed the inquiry.
Sparkes
asked the appellant if this project had been built in other areas of the
country.
Mauthe
responded the project has been built in 20 other locations around the country
with approximately 300 units in each project, built over the last 9 years.
Sparkes
stated he assumed there was an engineer on the project that designed the HVAC
system.
Mauthe
replied the same architects and engineers have been involved in all the
projects so far.
Sparkes
asked what has happened in other jurisdictions concerning the dryer vent length
since the length limitation has been in the code for many years.
Mauthe
responded the code also allows the dryer manufacturer’s installation
instructions for longer dryer vent lengths and other jurisdictions allow the
exception.
Sparkes
was concerned that if the particular brand of dryer was installed and the
venting was per the manufacturer and then the property is sold at a later
date, what is the probability a dryer
was installed that did not meet the specific venting lengths.
Mauthe
stated he was not an expert on other dryer manufacturers, but he assumes most
dryer manufacturers would have similar dryer length limitations.
Chaney
asked staff how many apartment complexes similar to this project have been
built in
Staff
responded there have been several projects similar to this one before the code
changed.
Chaney
asked staff what options have been given since the code has changed.
Staff
stated the option is to comply with the code which is 25 feet and deduct 5 feet
for every 90 degree bend.
Wyatt
stated the option for the board was to deny the appeal and enforce the code as
written or amend the code to put the exception back in. He asked if the code was changed back that it
would not help the appellant because the denial was based upon the current
code.
Staff
responded the applications were denied based on the current code as it is
written, if there were an amendment, the project would fall under the new
provisions.
Wyatt
asked to clarify that the board does not have the authority to waive the code
and an amendment would first need to be approved by the City Commission and
become law before it would be allowed.
Staff
responded that is correct.
Barry
Walthall stated another option would be for the appellant to propose the use of
an alternate design or material that could be approved by the board if it met
the intent of the code.
Chaney
stated he noticed the chart under number of bends in the staff report was short
one bend than what is shown on the plans.
Walthall
replied the reason for the lower number of bends was because the engineer had
submitted a redesign that utilized a recessed box that eliminated one bend at
the end of the dryer vent.
Chaney
questioned the fact that there would still be a 90 degree bend even with the
box.
Mauthe
replied once the dryer vent terminated in the box, the transition duct took
over and is regulated in another section of the code.
Wyatt asked
the appellant what other options are being explored if the appeal is denied.
Mauthe
replied he understands there is another option to appeal to the City
Commission. He also stated there would
not be any other way to meet the code as written with the floor plans and
designs.
Staff
asked the board if it was the board’s original intent to remove the exception
for single family since homeowners change often and the next dryer that came
may not perform in the same manner as the previous dryer.
Wyatt responded
his intent was on the performance of the dryer once the age of the dryer
increases, there was increased likelihood of lint buildup due to a weaker
dryer.
Gary Mohr
stated he is choosing to recuse himself from the discussion of the appeal for
possible conflict of interest due to business affiliation, but would like to
answer the question presented by staff. He stated his concern was more geared
toward the single family side of the issue with the dryer vent.
Wyatt
stated the board needs to decide if they want to allow the exception back in to
the code.
Chaney
stated he did not feel comfortable with allowing the exception back in.
There was
discussion that the equivalent length exceeded the manufacturer’s
recommendations and Walthall stated if the manufacturer’s installation
instructions are used the equivalent length according to the code did not
apply.
Jarboe
asked how the dryer vents that did not even comply with the manufacturer’s
installation instructions were allowed by other jurisdictions.
Walthall
replied there are many scenarios how that could happen, but there is no way to
know how other jurisdictions enforce their codes.
Chaney
asked if there would be a way to amend the code just for multi-family.
Staff
replied the International Mechanical Code regulated multi-family construction
and could be amended to allow the exception back in and would not affect single
family construction that is covered under the International Residential Code.
Chaney
proposed if the exception was used, a permit would be required if the dryer is
changed.
The board
replied that would be something that is unenforceable.
Walthall
stated if the plans were approved, any alteration to the stated plans would be
a code violation.
Wyatt
stated his concern is still with the performance of the dryer and a dryer with
some age is not going to perform like a new dryer.
Mauthe
stated Fairfield Development is not only a construction company, but is also a
property management company and if the dryer’s were not performing properly,
they would hear about it and make corrections on the construction end. He stated they could also install some type
of permanent placard to make sure any dryer installed would be able to meet the
existing dryer vent length.
Sparkes
stated he would entertain some type of language for a placard. He would like to know what kind of timeframe
for implementation of an amendment.
Walthall
responded the minimum timeframe would be about six weeks. Depending on the type of amendment the
timeframe could be different. Deleting
an amendment could be placed on a faster track.
Wyatt
asked if there would still have to have a legal review.
Walthall
stated there would still be a legal review and there is no guarantee the City
Commission would accept the recommendation.
Wyatt
asked if an amendment were made, would that cause any kind of enforcement
problem for the inspection department.
Walthall
replied the exception is pretty straightforward and would not cause any plan
review or enforcement problems.
Chaney made a motion to recommend allowing the
manufacturer’s recommendation back in the code for multi-family and add in the
requirement a placard be placed near the dryer with the dryer vent length
indicated and number of bends and any dryer installed must comply with the
existing dryer vent length. Seconded by Sparkes. Passed 3-1 with Wyatt casting the dissenting vote.
A Motion
to adjourn was made by Mohr, seconded by Sparkes. Passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.