City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

Meeting

August 20^th, 2008 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mike Porter Chairperson  Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, John Craft,  Mike Porter, Neal Ezell
MEMBERS ABSENT:	None
STAFF  PRESENT:	Katherine Simmons Plans Examiner
Guests Present :	None
Ex-Officio	Adrian Jones – Senior Plans Examiner

Review and approve minutes from August 6^th, 2009

Stogsdill made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 5-0

Plan and timetable for review of the 2009 International Codes.

Porter asked the Board if there were any significant concerns.

Stogsdill noted there were significant changes to the wall bracing requirements.

Ezell asked what was responsibility of the Board. He asked if the responsibility of the Board went beyond appeals.

Porter said the Board was tasked with providing the Commission with council on the technical aspect of the code.

Craft said the only time the Board stepped out of the role of an appeals Board was with the adoption of codes. The last time the Commission directed the Board to review the 2006 Codes.  He asked who directed the Board to review the 2009 Codes.

Porter read the City Code section regarding the responsibility, “Each Board of appeals may provide technical expertise and guidance as a code committee recommending to the City Council any changes necessary for the adoption of codes and ordinances.”

Stogsdill noted that the fire sprinklers were part of the 2006 Code and the City could have adopted the provisions if it had desired.

Ezell said it was put in the appendix of the 2006 codes so it would be easier to line it out when adopting the code.

Ezell said 47 states did not adopt the fire sprinkler appendix in the 2006 code. Ezell also noted several other significant portions of the code. He said duct testing could be performed at the rough-in stage so only supply side ducts would be tested. There are options such as testing at the rough in, final, testing with the air handler in or out.

Craft said the drawback to testing only the supply side is that the HVAC system is designed to work as a system and you may have leaks in the return side whether it is from the attic crawl space or exterior. The system may be pulling in unconditioned air. Craft asked if ducts were installed without the air handler.

Ezell said the furnace is usually the first thing set.

Porter said if this is an issue what does the Board do with it?

Ezell noted the National Association of Home builders 2009 Code adoption kit made recommendation on local code amendments. There are just a few that might apply to Lawrence. The NAHB recommended performing a duct blaster test on one out of seven houses. The duct blaster is a requirement for Energy Star homes. The NAHB is proposing the same method for testing residential air ducts. This has to do with testing the mechanical contractors’ methods and practices. This provision is an attempt to determine how much air is leaking to unconditioned space.

Jones said the issue of conditioned space came up at the last meeting. The question is if furrdowns were considered conditioned space. Staff researched the topic and determined that if the furrdowns was sealed from the attic space then it could be considered conditioned space and duct runs in furrdowns did not have to be tested. Basements are also considered conditioned space.

Porter said at this meeting he would like to identify the issues and determine how big of a job the board faces rather than try to tackle each issue. 

Ezell noted equipment tradeoffs were no longer allowed for building envelope components. He also noted section R312. Currently if there is a drop of more than 30 inches above grade a guard is required. The new code moves the grade out 36 inches from the walking surface to determine the grade change.

Smalter said this requirement was to prevent builders from berming up to the walking surfaces. 

Ezell said the new code also requires plumbing supports to be metal.

Porter thought the mechanical, electrical and plumbing boards will have a say on the MEP provisions.

Ezell also noted section R403.1.6 sole plate anchorage and R502.2.2.3 deck lateral load connections. Interior braced wall panels on a slab now have to be anchored.  With deck attachments it seems the code is saying either use the method in the code or have it engineered.

Porter said he thinks the code indicates this is permitted as a method to resist lateral loads and not a requirement.

Simmons said this may have implication for deck replacements.   

Porter asked Ezell as a builder what in the code concerns him the most.

Ezell responded fire sprinklers.

Stogsdill said his only concern is residential fire sprinklers. He said when you look at residential sprinkler design, literally a home owner can install theses systems. The piping is just regular plumbing piping.

Jones said Barry Walthall made a suggestion that the board schedule one or two sprinklers installation companies give a presentation to the Board. 

Smalter said she has contacted Jayhawk Fire to work up a proposal on a typical house.

Stogsdill said the way he reads the code the installation takes it out of the professional installer realm and allows for any plumber to install a system. He feels the learning curve is going to be tremendous. His biggest reservation is maintenance and he has not seen the demand for sprinklers.

Craft said if he understands the issue, the board is to provide technical advice to the commission. So much of the arguments he hears about sprinklers is philosophical and financial. 

Porter said that he feels the Board will be asked to provide some guidance as to what the cost of some of theses systems might be. The Commission does not have any other way of getting that information.

Ezell said that based on a cost figure he got from a firefighters website, a house that he just built with 1600 square feet on the main level and 1600 square feet downstairs the cost would be $5,500 to install sprinklers.  The question comes back to if the owner would be willing to pay that to have a sprinkler system.

Smalter said she thinks the board has covered all of the topics.

Ezell said there were some new electrical requirements such as the increase use of GFCI receptacles.

Porter noted that all new receptacles now are required to be tamper proof.

Smalter said she would like to hear from the other Boards on recommendations to the changes.

Craft said now that these sprinkler systems can be installed by plumbers there might be a situation where the plumbers are very much in support of sprinklers.

Porter suggested the board receive Ezell’s information to review. He will review the deck connection requirements from an engineering standpoint. It sounds like from a technical standpoint the Board does not see anything significant other than the sprinklers.

Smalter said she thought the Board could address Ezell's issues in one meeting and devote another entire meeting to sprinklers.

Porter he would like to have a presentation by an installer and could get some idea on cost.

Craft said that it seems to him that until a builder has installed 20 systems there is no way to know what the cost will be.

Ezell said that he has talked to an architect and said the main concern is leakage and maintenance.

Stogsdill said now that the duplex and townhomes has gone to a 1 hour wall based on the fact that the structure is sprinkled. Eliminating the sprinklers may have an impact on fire resistance.

Jones said sprinklers have been installed in multi-family for quite some time. He sees no difference in leakage going from multi-family to single family.

Craft asked if PEX was permitted as a piping material for sprinklers.

Ezell said either PEX or PVC is permitted.

Craft said if PEX was allowed then it could be run like Romex and easily installed. It just has to be run in conditioned space.

Jones said the system uses potable water and can be run like any other system to prevent water freezing.

Smalter asked if the Board should address the sprinkler system first because if the decision is to amend it out then that brings up many more issues that must be addressed.

Porter said that as an individual he is going to be extremely reluctant to amend out the sprinkler provisions. The reason is that it is strictly a safety issue. He is unwilling to take the responsibility to say we don’t need that. We live in a litigious society where burn injuries and deaths cost money.

Craft said that he understands Porters position. His question is does the Board need to spend hours and hours trying to get cost estimates and quotes. If it is a philosophical issue to the chairman and perhaps some other members let’s not spin our wheels.  If we know were not going to mandate it out because it fraught with risk.

Ezell said that goes to our mandate to provide technical information. 

Porter said the Board should provide the Commission with the implications of adopting the sprinkler provisions.

Craft asked if the Board is to guess at what the commissioners wants to know does the Board write them and ask.

Jones said the Planning and Development Services Director, Scott McCullough has advised the Board should act as an independent advisory committee on technical issues and present their best recommendation to the commission.

Porter said he would like to take a non-binding straw poll as to which members would support not amending the sprinkler provisions out. The poll was 3-2 in favor of leaving the sprinklers in the code. He would like to see some information on the effectiveness of these systems and some information on the history of their use. Porter said the boards main concerns is cost and maintenance.

Craft said if these were looped systems where is the maintenance?  Craft asked if the piping has to be in conditioned space how is the system designed?  There may be more cost than just the cost of the system in terms of limits on design and complication in framing.

Porter suggested the Board review the requirements for a 13D system. He will review R505.2.  He also suggested the Board hear from the Homebuilders and devote the next meeting to fire sprinklers.

Stogsdill motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Ezell. Motion passed 5-0