City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

Meeting

September 9^th, 2008 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mike Porter Chairperson  Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, John Craft, 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 20^th, 2009

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

Discuss IRC Section 502.2.2.3 Deck Lateral Load Connection

Porter stated the detail shown in the figure 502.2.2.3 is not a code requirement. The requirements have to do with seismic design for seismic design area C and D. The City of Lawrence is Seismic design area B therefore this requirement is not applicable.  Porter said the lateral load for this location in only .1g.  Which means for a 2000 lb deck the lateral load is only 200 lbs.

Discuss Residential Fire Sprinklers 

Smalter asked if the 2009 IRC is adopted in July of next year and the sprinkler requirement does not become effective until January of 2011, how does that affect the rest of the code and why are we in such a hurry?

Craft asked if the addition of sprinklers allowed for a reduction in fire separation requirements on a duplex, what would be the ramifications of eliminating sprinklers?

Stogsdill said that if the ICC were overly concerned with safety they would not have put in the time lapse for implementation.

Jones said it is not uncommon for some provisions in a code to not become effective upon adoption of the rest of the code. It gives manufacturers time to gear up.

Craft asked if fire separation may become an issue how would the Board deal with it?

Porter said the requirement was for townhouses not duplexes and single families. In townhouses the sprinkler requirements take effect upon adoption of the 2009 code.

Jones said he does not think there are any fire separation changes for duplexes between the 2006 and the 2009 IRC.  It remains a 1 hour wall which extends to the roof deck.  The question is does townhome separation change with or without sprinklers.

Stogsdill said that he thinks townhouse separation is reduced with sprinklers in the new code.

Jones asked if a townhouse was built prior to 2011 is a 2 hour wall required.

Stogsdill said that he does think the code requires a 2 hour or 2 1 hour walls prior to the sprinkler requirement kicking in.

Porter stated the IRC Significant Changes handbook also notes the reduction in fire separation rating in townhomes is coupled with the sprinkler provisions. 

Craft said if the Board decided to amend out the sprinkler provision the only thing that is affected is the fire separation of townhomes.

Porter said that is correct. You have to build 2 hour wall unless sprinklers are installed.

Craft asked Ezell from a Lawrence homebuilder’s position if the only thing that is being affected is townhomes and if you have until 2011 for the manufacturers to hopefully come up with less expensive system, what is his opinion?  

Ezell said he doesn’t think they will come up with less expensive systems. The point is if he wanted to call someone tomorrow to install sprinklers he doesn’t think he could get it done.

Smalter said it could be done but not at a very competitive price. 

Craft said that it would be at more of a commercial price than a residential price. Craft asked Ezell if knowing that would it have any change in his position.

Ezell said it would not.

Porter asked what type of license would be required to install residential sprinklers.

Jones said he believed a licensed plumber could install residential systems.

Stogsdill said there were no licensed requirements as long as the installer complied with the code.

Simmons said homeowners could install a system.

Ezell said he spoke to his insurance agent who told him it would save him $65 or 5% a year on his insurance if he had sprinkler system throughout.

Stogsdill said that insurance companies know exactly how much risk they have and base their premiums on that risk. Obviously it must not be much risk in terms of frequency of fires. Whether or not that’s pertinent to saving lives that’s another discussion.

Porter said that sprinkler systems just have not been used so there is probably not much incentive to give a discount in rates.

Craft asked if we had any verification of the $5000 cost for typical home.

Smalter says she has read many different estimates 1% to 2%, $5000 to $7500 or $1.60 to $2.00 per ft².

Stogsdill says his concern is these systems do not require any special license and therefore the learning curve will be tremendous.

Jones said that he would imagine we would require sprinkler plans.

Smalter said there were very specific location requirements.

Jones said it would be the same as running water supply piping.

Smalter asked if 46 states have adopted the 2003 or 2006 IRC and all of these states at some point have to go through this exercise, why Lawrence has to be first? 

Stogsdill said that in his research of code adoptions there are usually tradeoffs. In the case of the sprinkler provisions that did not happen because the process broke down when the vote happened. There are expectations by some that in the 2012 code those discussions and tradeoffs will happen. We know that in commercial sprinkling a building allows for many tradeoffs. There are no tradeoffs in the IRC for sprinkling. His thought is that perhaps when they review the 2012 code they will come up with some issues that will make a lot of sense.

Jones said there was a tradeoff from the 2 hour wall to a one hour wall which is a typical compartmentalization tradeoff for sprinkling.

Stogsdill said he thought the fire separation distance has been increased which is compounded with the sprinkler requirement.

Smalter said that according to an article she read concerning developments there were tradeoffs associated with have sprinklered homes including reduced housing spacing, increasing spacing for fire hydrants, reducing turnarounds and adding additional fire stations.  She said these are things which can put a positive spin on requiring residential sprinklers.

Craft agreed but said those are things which are beyond the scope of the IRC.

Stogsdill stated the idea of tradeoffs not being reviewed for this code is the reason the state of Minnesota choose to wait until the 2012 code.  That was one of the reasons they stated.

Smalter said Minnesota also felt that the drastic slowdown in the economy was also a factor.

Jones asked the Board if it would help if he provided the Board the code hearing text.

Craft suggested that since the requirements do not kick in until 2011 this issue can be tabled until that time. If there is a cushion already built into the code then let’s say we’re not going to review theses provision until then. At that time we will have data to review. We would not be on the cutting edge and hardware cost date will be more available. The Board will be able to make a better decision.

Porter asked if it wasn’t for the sprinkler issue is there anything else in the code that the Board would not want to adopt.  The reason he asks is that he sees a number of new provisions that make sense. He thinks the prescriptive deck fastening is a good idea.

Ezell agreed he says that he really likes the new code.

Porter said a lot of new things in the code that should help builders instead of hurt them. Sprinklers aside, are there any reasons why they would not want to adopt this code?

Smalter said there are some minor issues but in general she would be in agreement that it is a good code.

Porter said his point is what is it that the Board is really talking about? If there are issues other than sprinklers that would prevent the Board from recommending adopting the code then the sprinkler issue is moot.

Stogsdill said we could look at it another way. Is there anything so important in this code that we can’t wait to adopt the 2012 code? His attitude toward sprinklers has improved drastically after he has done some research. He is not so adamant that it will never happen or it shouldn’t happen. He has concerns about timing. He feels it’s been forced on communities. He does not feel the ICC has done a complete review about what the ramifications will be. Given the code required delay in implementation there is only one year of additional safety gained than if the board waits until the 2012 code cycle. 

Jones said that proponent of sprinkler systems have tried throughout the code cycles to require sprinklers in residential single family homes. In the 2000 IRC the proponents were downright rejected. In the 2003 and 2006 the ICC committee rejected the proposals instead placing the requirements in the appendix.       

Craft said he see himself following the option approach, which is to recommend adopting the 2009 minus the sprinkler provisions. Part of that reasoning is because of the changes in the energy code requirements.  That would mean less of a dramatic change when the builders have change from one code to another.  If we wait until 2012 then we hit them with not only the sprinklers but tighter energy requirements and other changes.

Ezell agreed. He said he thinks about cites like Topeka that have not adopted an energy code. The impact on them will be tremendous.

Jones said he believes that jurisdictions that do not keep their codes current make it difficult on the design and development communities as well as taking advantage of new technologies and construction methods learned over code cycles. Jones said he suspects the arguments for or against inclusion of residential sprinklers are going to be the same for 2009 as they will be in 2012. It comes down to cost. There is no doubt that sprinklers work. There is no doubt that they save lives and property.  The only thing that will change will be the cost. As more suppliers and manufacturers get involved and contractors learn how to become more efficient at installation there will be a big drop in cost.     

Ezell said it will be so much less of an unknown quantity maybe there will not be such a fear of it.

Craft said that if the bulk impact of sprinklers is delayed until 2011, by which time the 2012 codes will be out for review, if we state that we will review those provisions at that time, he does not see what the Board is giving up.  There will be no effect, other than townhomes separation.

Porter said that he would agree with Craft. There are many improvements in this version of the Code. He also agrees with Mark that maybe many of the sprinkler issues have not been resolved.  Maybe we should wait until theses issues shake out.

Jones asked if the Board would amend it out or set a timetable for review.

Porter said he would not amend it out.

Ezell said that if the Board adopts the Code then it’s adopted and in 2011 we’re putting in sprinkler systems.

The only way would be if the Commission reviews it and asks the Board to review it and amend it out.

Jones said the Commission will review these minutes.

Smalter said Porter is suggesting no amendments.

Jones said that if sprinklers were adopted in only townhomes that would give time to review installations and cost.

Stogsdill suggested the Board just review adopting the sprinkler provisions at the next code cycle.  At that point there would have been three years of installations in townhouses and when it’s presented to the general public we’ll have some real cost and maybe some of the other issues will be worked out.

Smalter asked if the Board could insert language that said it would delay review or adoption of the provisions as opposed to the Board will review it when the next set of codes comes out.

Craft suggested the Board set a review date of September 2010 and if the issues are still as muddied as they are now then we will wait until the 2012 code. It might seem to give the impression the Board is being more conscientious.

Stogsdill asked how long the adoption process takes.

Jones replied approximately 6 months.

Stogsdill asked where the other Boards were in the process.

Jones said it was his understanding the other Boards were working on the IRC first.

Porter asked if there was any evidence the tradeoff analysis was not conducted for the IRC.

Stogsdill said that he had text of discussion off the internet from the state of Minnesota.

Porter said given the 2 year lag in the implementation of the code provision combined with information that the discussions by the ICC were incomplete would influence him in the direction that maybe this issue has not been settled. The Board should not adopt something that is not settled. He would say let’s adopt the 2009 IRC and let’s take 313.2 out.  Let’s set September of next year to look at it again and see if we want to recommend putting it back in.  It changes nothing except the townhomes. We say that this is an issue that needs further study and we need to do that next year.

Craft said he was ok taking it out at this point and tagging it with a later review date.

Ezell said he thinks the Board should leave in the townhome provision.

Jones stated that he wanted to be clear the language was only to delete section 313.2 one and two family sprinkler requirements and task the board to review the provisions at a later date for possible amendments to add it back into the code.

The board concurred with this language.

Porter says the proviso is that the Board needs some support. That ICC did not finish its discussion on the issue.

Jones said text from the code hearing should provide the board with the discussion on the topic.

Stogsdill said the board needs to have reasons why it deleted the sprinkler provisions. One issue is affordable housing and other is there have not been modifications in terms of tradeoffs to offset the sprinklers provisions.  

Porter said the Board cannot vote on this issue now because it does not have the information.

Porter directed staff to review the code hearing text and provide a summary to the Board.

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