City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

Meeting

July 17^th, 2008 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mike Porter Chairperson  Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, John Craft,  Neal Ezell
MEMBERS ABSENT:	None
STAFF  PRESENT:
Guess Present :	None
Ex-Officio	Adrian Jones
Attachments	Proposed amendment UA versus insulation analysis Cash flow versus insulation analysis Proposed

Discuss Foundation insulation amendment

The board discussed a proposal to amend the code to allow basement wall insulation to extend from top of wall to three feet below grade.  The code currently requires insulation to extend from the top of the wall to 10 feet below grade or the basement floor whichever is less.  Ezell presented the Board with calculations which showed cash flow versus insulation value. Neal stated his research showed insulating farther than 3 feet below grade produced a negative cash flow.  Ezell stated he examined the price of the insulation installed versus the gain in energy efficiency and determined the extra insulation did not pay for itself.

Ezell proposed amending the code by adding an exception to IRC section N1102.2.6

Exception: Basement walls that are otherwise exposed shall be insulated from the top of the basement wall down 3 feet (914mm) below grade or the basement floor, whichever is less.

Stogsdill asked what “otherwise exposed” meant.

Porter replied that it meant a concrete wall.

Craft asked if the payoff stops at 3 feet why insulate any basement wall past 3 feet?

Ezell replied with a stud wall the studs, sheetrock and batt insulation down to 3 feet are already paid for.  The only additional cost is the 5 feet of batt insulation down to the floor. It’s not worth the time to tell insulation contractors not to insulate the remaining portion of the stud bay. If it is a bare wall where only the price of the insulation is taken into account that’s where the price break occurs.

Stogsdill asked why they were leaving in the 10 foot requirement.

Ezell replied he wanted the amendment to make clear the difference between finished space and unfinished spaces.  This amendment specifically refers to walls in unfinished spaces. Walls which are otherwise exposed.

Smalter stated her concern is the number of endless basement finish options after the home is built that might not comply with the code.  She asked where does the code draw the line.

Porter stated that it was the Board’s intent that these walls were to be insulated with R-10 at least 3 feet below grade.  If they can insulate the wall on the outside the Board is comfortable with that.  If they want to do it on the outside and plaster the inside wall the Board is comfortable with that also. 

Smalter replied the "what if" is if they come back and want to finish off the basement.

Porter stated the intent of what the Board is proposing has been addressed in the amendment.  

Ezell stated the worst case downside of this is that if a home owner has a full basement where they have insulated the walls down to 3 feet below grade, they’re losing 15% of their insulation potential and gained 85%.  He believes the Board can justify the gains achieved with this amendment. 

Stogsdill said he wanted to be clear on the amendment.  If it there was no other changes to a concrete wall the insulation will be allowed to extend only 3 feet below grade with insulation attached to the inside or outside of the wall.  If the wall finish is changed in any manner the insulation must extend to 10 feet below grade or the basement floor whichever is less.   

Ezell replied that was correct.

Craft asked if a plastered basement wall was considered otherwise exposed?

Porter replied that it was not. A painted wall is considered exposed.

Jones said his concern is when a homeowner comes back and wants to finish a room where the wall has insulation applied to the concrete halfway down.

Ezell stated that his company normally just removes the insulation and apply batt insulation.

Craft motioned to accept the amendment as proposed. Seconded by Ezell. Motion passed 5-0. 

The Board thanked Ezell for doing the calculations and putting together the materials.

Board Discussed Water Fountains.

Stogsdill stated that while reviewing the code for adoption the Board did not examine every detail.  While working with the code it was discovered the code required a drinking fountain in all occupancies regardless of the occupant load.  This is a significant change from the UBC. This puts a severe financial impact on small businesses and in his opinion doesn’t do anything for the safety, health and welfare individuals. He is proposing amending the code to require the installation of a drinking fountain only if the occupant load exceeds 30.

Porter stated it is his understanding that Jones is opposed to this amendment because he believes there was a reason the requirement was strengthened in the code but at this point has not determined the reasoning for the code change.

Jones stated that he has searched many sources online and through the ICC and cannot find the documentation and the code change text that required the change.

Porter asked if there were any projects that would be affected by this amendment.

Stogsdill said he had a project currently under construction that would be affected.  The project is nearing completion. They put in a fountain per the requirement.  Stogsdill said that his partner also has a project that would be affected.

Ezell asked what the project was.

Stogsdill replied it was a business occupancy with the occupant load of 26.

Ezell asked how many people will be in the business at one time.

Stogsdill replied not anywhere near 26. The other one was a salon. He did not know what the occupant load was but it was not very large and it would also be required to install a drinking fountain.  

Ezell asked why 30.

Stogsdill replied that was the number that came out of the previous UBC building code. The UBC had a note on the plumbing fixture table that said occupancies with an occupant load over 30 shall have one drinking fountain for each 150 occupants. Stogsdill used the Lied Center as an example. The Lied Center has an occupant load of 2000. Under the UBC it would require 13 or 14 drinking fountains.  Under the IBC it would only require 4.  He feels there should an exception for businesses with small occupant loads.  He said the occupant load number is debatable whether it is 10 or 12 or 15.  He wrote the proposed amendment to only require drinking fountains if the occupant load exceeded 30.

Smalter asked Jones about his concerns.

Jones said that he is familiar with the code change process.  He said that with a code change such as this one the ICC considers financial impact. It would have considered businesses with small occupant loads. He questions why the code now requires access to drinking water for all occupancies?  Why did they require more fountains instead of less?  He feels that access to drinking water must be a health issue and suspects the ICC felt occupants of businesses with a 10 or 12 occupant load had as much of a right to drinking water as those businesses with larger occupant loads. 

Craft asked if the one fountain had to be ADA accessible.

Stogsdill replied that if a fountain was provided it had to be accessible.

Craft noted the requirement in the code says that a fountain is required for a person using a chair and a person standing. He asked Stogsdill about the cost of a high/low fountain.

Stogsdill replied the fountain in his latest project cost $2000 installed.

Craft asked if the unit was a water cooler also, because that added electrical requirements.

Stogsdill replied the installation cost included electrical and plumbing.  

Craft noted the code did not require a cooled water fountain.

Ezell asked if a coffee shop required a fountain.

Jones said there was an exception for businesses that served food or drink.

Smalter used an example of a business that had only one employee.

Porter said what he hears is that there is a practical problem with the code.  There is a theoretical objection to the amendment other than that all of us agree that it needs to be fixed.  Stogsdill has made a proposal to amend the code.

Craft asked what would happen if we lowered the number to 12.  How many offices do we have with 12 people?

Ezell said there were many offices like that.

Jones said that he understand the Boards reasoning on the issue.  He asked the Board if at some point he determines the requirement for the code change and the reasons are compelling would the board consider revisiting the issue.

The consensus of the board was that it would revisit the amendment.

Stogsdill made a motion to add a footnote to the required fixture table in the IBC to read “Drinking fountains shall not be required unless occupant load exceed 30”.  Seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 5-0.

Jones asked about the Plumbing Code. The fixture table is identical in the Plumbing Code.

Smalter made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Ezell.   Motion passed 5-0.

Meeting adjourned 11:45