City of Lawrence
Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting
May 2, 2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Mike Porter Chairperson Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, John Craft, Mike Porter, |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Barry Walthall- Building Safety Manager Margene Swarts - Interim Assistant Director Planning and Development Services |
|
Guess Present : |
|
Frank Salb - |
|
Ex-Officio |
|
Adrian Jones |
|
Attachments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order by Chairman Mike Porter at 11:05 a.m.
Porter asked Mr. Salb to present his appeal.
Mr. Salb stated that when his architect designed the floor plan he looked at section 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) section 1004.2.1. They looked at that section where it says that access to an exit shall not be interrupted by intervening rooms. Exception #3 allows rooms with a cumulative occupant load less than 10 to exit through more than one intervening room. Exception #6 says that rooms within a dwelling unit may access an exit through more than one intervening room. He and his architect felt like when they drew the blueprint with a 6’ sliding door right next to a 2’8” door to the outside they felt that they were within the boundary of the Code. The owner because of health concerns has great difficulty in the case of an emergency climbing through a window. If the owner sells the house, any future owner would go through the means of egress they provided before the climbing through a 3’ X 5’ window. As far as the fire department is concerned a firefighter would rather walk through a door than climb in a 3’ X 5’ window. They felt plans showed all the elevations and all the window and door openings. There wasn’t anything said at plan review. There was nothing said at framing inspection, so he had no question as to whether they were meeting code or not. It wasn’t until his final inspection that they were turned down for no egress. They felt like they had a safer means of egress than a 3’x 5 window. Mr. Salb stated that he has a letter from the homeowner stating that she does not want an egress window. In order to make it aesthetically pleasing they would have to put in two 3’ X 5’ windows. Mr. Salb said the blueprint showed four foot concrete wall all along the bedroom side of the house. They moved the retaining wall over on the property line and built the exterior wall of wood. If they had built the house with a four foot concrete wall as proposed the house would not have met egress requirements.
Walthall said that he thought Mr. Salb was misapplying the code. The height of the window on the interior side is a maximum 44” above finished floor.
Stogsdill said he could not have met code with a 4’ wall.
Walthall said it was not relevant because the interior floor height could be different than the exterior side.
Porter said that he thinks that Salb is saying the interior floor elevation and exterior elevation are the same, but the wall is not there so it is really not an issue. Porter said that it looks as though what we have here is a home that is built not in accordance with the code. As the City has pointed out, UBC section 310.4 says that when there is some ambiguity the stricter provision applies. Porter stated that is really what he feels will be in effect here. The exit requirement for a bedroom must be met in order to meet the Code. Fortunately the new code is less ambiguous. Going down the line maybe we can avoid some of these problems. The other problem is that we have a home that went through plan review and the windows are clearly not on the plans. At no time up until the final inspection does he see where it was noted that the egress window was not there. So the Board is kind of between a rock and a hard spot. The Board does not have the authority to override the Code. That is made clear in the authorization statement for this committee. The only way the Board can say ok you can do it that way is under the manifest injustice clause. The Board has to decide if that applies here or not. With that said he will open it up for other comments.
Smalter said that she agrees with Porter but asked how the Board would apply the manifest injustice clause to this situation.
Porter said that since the City did not catch it on the plan review or catch it on the framing inspection that somehow that may be considered an injustice. In his personal opinion he thinks that by providing egress through a door he should be commended. However, having said that, the house just does not meet code. The only way to avoid this is that when you make an interpretation of the code you should make sure the City is going to agree with you.
Mr. Salb said that in 20 years of building and having constructed over 500 houses this is the first time he has ever had to come before the Appeals Board. He said his company tries to look over all those details. He does not know how this one slipped by. He said he felt like this would be permissible. There is no where in the exiting section of the code that tells you that you have to go back to another paragraph and use the stricter of the two sections. He noted the application for the appeal says “The application for an appeal shall be based on a claim of the true intent of this article or the rules legally adopted there under have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of the article do not fully apply, or equally good or better form of construction is proposed.” That is why he was here today because he felt like his company came up with an equally good or better form of construction especially for this homeowner. If someone were in that house and it caught on fire, would they try to climb through a window or would they walk through a door six feet away? When a person goes to a motel room the first thing they do is to check to see where all the exits are. Even though motel rooms are sprinklered, this home is still much safer than a motel room. Salb said that he felt the egress system is much safer than a two story houses with a walkout basement. He asked which is safer having someone walk six feet or someone having to jump out climb out, or being rescued out of a three story window. He felt this was better than what the code asked for.
Smalter said that unfortunately we can’t base our decision on who is living there at the time.
Craft asked if there was another avenue of interpretation given the section that says the board has to take the stricter of the two sections
Porter said that he feel that paragraph is specifically there to remove any ambiguity. The question is can the Board look at a better way to meet the code? If it is then the Board would have to amend the Code to allow it.
Smalter said that under the definition of egress consideration should be given to not only the person in the dwelling but also the person coming to rescue them. This applies both ways. She asked if the Fire Department made any comment.
Jones said that he spoke with Russell Brickell the fire inspector. He said the Fire Department was totally against not having an egress rescue window in the bedroom and this would also be a violation of the Fire Code.
Craft asked if Mr. Salb had a cost estimate for installing an egress window.
Mr. Salb said that it would cost $500 a window. Salb said that he did not do this because he was trying to save money.
Porter said that no one on the Board believes that you did this in other than good faith or weren’t trying to do the right thing.
Smalter said that she’s not trying to tell your architect what to do but that he didn’t have to install two windows. The code would only require one.
Stogsdill said that other than changing the names of rooms so that it technically meets the letter of the law he is not sure that it complies with the requirement to have direct egress from the bedroom. If you changed the sunroom to the bedroom, who’s to say which room you sleep in? You could pull the door out and make the sun room part of the bedroom, but it might not meet the opening percentage.
Ezell asked if the sunroom was conditioned.
Mr. Salb said that it was. He stated that he could have pulled the door out, passed inspection then replaced the door. That is not the way he wants to do business, he never has and will not start now.
Jones said changing the name of rooms does not change the code nor does it change the reasoning for the code provisions.
Mr. Salb said that it is amazing that the code allows an egress window out of a three story bedroom but does not allow a bedroom occupant to walk six feet to an exit door.
Smalter asked if the board looked at this through the International Residential Code (IRC) would it help Mr. Salb’s argument.
Walthall stated that staff has worked with Mr. Salb and tried to explore every option and could not find a solution.
Porter said the IRC is clearer concerning this issue.
Walthall said the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is clear but there is a difference between Chapter 10 exiting and the requirements for egress from a bedroom. They are confusing if you don’t look at them together.
Porter said if you don’t read all the sections of the code, and no one does, then it’s not clear. That’s almost obvious. That is one of the problems with the UBC. The IRC is much clearer.
Mr. Salb said he did look at the whole code. It’s the paragraph about using the stricter requirement. Define the stricter? It’s confusing.
Jones said that is the advantage of moving to the IRC. The uniform code had the provisions for commercial and residential in one code. Many of the provisions in the Uniform Code had an exception for residential one and two family.
Walthall explained exiting is the path a building occupant gets from the space under consideration to the outside. Egress as required by chapter 3 is an emergency escape and rescue issue. It is getting directly from a space such as a bedroom or basement to the outside or directly from the outside for the fire department to rescue that person. That person is vulnerable because they are possibly asleep. When you say that you have to take the strictest of the code requirement that’s true, but in this case they both apply because you have to have a means of exit and a means of egress.
Porter suggested moving the door and making a direct path to the outside.
Stogsdill said that that would make it code compliant, but it would in essence be changing room names and create other exit paths.
Craft said it would be more costly than putting in windows.
Smalter motioned to deny the appeal and require an egress window. Second by Craft. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Salb thanked the board for it’s time.
Swarts stated that hopefully an issue such as this will not come before the board again.
Jones said that one issue he felt was that the floor plan was not readable, and he would like to see larger scaled plans. Reducing ¼” scaled drawings to less than 1/8th scale makes them difficult to read. The size of the window is not readable on the floor plan but was clearly on the elevation.
Stogsdill said he thought the plans were of sufficient clarity that questions should have been raised at plan review.
Walthall said staff has discussed these issues about the framing inspection. He stated he has talked about these issues before but every once in a while you have to bring it back up. This is something that is very important to catch at the framing inspection if possible.
Swarts reiterated Smalter’s earlier point by stating if a contractor was toying with an idea of an interpretation that they may not be sure about one of the things they can do on the front end is to contact staff and discuss it. Staff is available for that kind of technical assistance.
Mr. Salb said he thought this would be perfectly legal under the 2003 Code.
The Board briefly discussed the IBC requirements for drinking fountains. Stogsdill suggested the Board discuss it at the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned 11:45