City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

Meeting

October 15th, 2009 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mike Porter Chairperson , Mark Stogsdill, John Craft, Neal Ezell

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Janet Smalter  - Vice Chairperson

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

Mark Mills  - Plumbing Inspector

Guess Present :

 

None

Ex-Officio

 

Katherine Simmons  - Plans Examiner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting called to order 11:35 am

 

Review and approve minutes from August 20th, 2009

Stogsdill asked that the following statement be revised to read “Stogsdill said that he does not think the code requires either a 2 hour wall or 2 1 hour walls”.   

 

Stogsdill moved to accept minutes as amended, seconded by Craft motion passed 4-0

 

Discuss Residential Fire Sprinklers 

Porter said that in reading the code committee hearing text provided by staff it appeared the technical code committee did not want to mandate the sprinkler provisions. It wanted to leave them in the appendix. He has read information on the web which indicated members were bussed in to vote in support of the requirement to mandate installation of automatic fire sprinklers in all new one and two family dwelling units. In his mind that doesn’t indicate to him the issue is resolved. 

 

Stogsdill said the fire sprinklers have been in the code for quite some time. It’s always been in the appendices and has always been the City’s option to adopt those provisions. He believes that is the appropriate place for them. If for some reason we as a municipality were really concerned about this issue we could always adopt those provisions to directly address those concerns. He tends to agree with Porter’s assessment.

 

Porter said that at the last meet the board indicated that if it were to approve recommending adoption of the 2009 IRC it would do so by deleting section R313.2 which is the residential sprinkler requirement. Porter asked the board if that was still the plan.

 

Ezell agreed and added the Board agreed to leave in the sprinkler provisions for townhouses.

 

Porter noted the provisions for automatic sprinklers in townhouses were contained in section R313.1.  Porter asked if there was further discussion before the board decided whether of not to recommend adopting the 2009 IRC.

 

Ezell said that so far the only issue discussed in depth is the sprinkler provisions. The Board has not discussed the current amendments to the current code. Is the Board going to proposes extending those amendments into the new code?

 

Stogsdill noted the foundation requirements have changed and asked if the Board wanted to recommend or not the use the Johnson County guidelines?

 

Ezell said the code backed off of the anchor bolt requirements.

 

Stogsdill said the ICC code committee realized the anchor bolt provisions in the 2006 IRC were excessive.   

 

Ezell said there was still the basement wall insulation and foundation slab edge insulation issue.

 

Stogsdill suggested that staff provide a list of amendments to the current code to consider and discuss.

 

Stogsdill asked Craft and Ezell if they thought the new energy provision were acceptable.

 

Craft said there were rumblings the new energy provisions would be even tighter.

 

Porter said he would recommend the Board put language into the code that said the deck lateral connection requirement does not apply to this region. So that staff understands the Board says it doesn’t apply here. His concern is that someone could come back later and reinterpret that provision. 

 

Stogsdill said the National Homebuilder Association suggested the jurisdictions amend the code to not increase the fire separation distance from the property line or spacing between structures. Currently structures can be 3 feet from the property line. The new codes want to increase that to 5 feet. In his readings of the ICC minutes there was no documentation or evidence brought forward to indicate that was necessary.

 

Ezell said that basically the current building setback is 5 feet, but it is permissible to have a building projection extend into the setback by 2 feet. This would effectively make that a 3 foot setback. The new code requires a minimum of 5 feet with no projections allowed. 

 

Craft asked if part of the reason was security.

 

Simmons said that she thought it was all based on fire separation.

 

Porter asked if that was problem.

 

Stogsdill said that it was because the lots are tighter and the regulations make it difficult to accomplish some simple tasks.

 

Simmons said if that were to be approved it would be in conflict with the City development code so that would have to be looked at.

 

Porter said that would be a legitimate amendment to consider. Porter asked staff to provide a list of current amendments for the Board to go through and compare to their proposed amendments at the next meeting.

 

Stogsdill asked if the Board was ok on the sprinklers, what does the straw poll indicate.

 

Porter said his straw poll indicated the Board was going to delete section R313.2

 

Ezell asked if the Board still intended to recommend pushing back the provisions until the 2012 code cycle.

 

Porter said the Board was going to review it in a year.

 

Stogsdill asked why the board was going to review the sprinklers provisions a year from now.

 

Porter replied to see if anything had changed.

 

Stogsdill said the only thing that would come into play would be if a few residential townhouses had sprinklers installed. That would be the only thing the Board would know different.

 

Simmons said there were very few townhomes built in the City so if the Board is toying with the idea of builders becoming familiar with the process it might be worth the idea of keeping them in duplexes.

 

Porter said the problem is that 313.2 addresses single family and duplexes. He would not be a proponent of mandating sprinklers in duplexes.

 

Simmons said in a years time it really would not be worth the effort. 

 

Stogsdill said that in his opinion the Board should wait until the next code cycle and see what happens in not only here in Lawrence but also in other surrounding area communities and in other parts of the country.  

 

Craft asked how much greater risk is a homeowner or occupant of a duplex to be victims of their careless neighbors.  Since it is a duplex you have no control over the person you share a wall with. Should the Board consider that?

 

Ezell said there was a 2 hour wall separating and protecting the spaces.

 

Stogsdill said it was only a 1 hour wall. Townhouses are either 2 one hour walls or a 2 hour wall.  A duplex has a 1 hour wall but it has to go all the way to the roof. The code specifically talks about single family and two family units. That is a similar type residency. He agrees that you do not have control over your neighbor but ICC has not perceived the danger to be as great. Townhomes on the other hand can have as many as 20 single family units in one structure. It’s like downtown where there’s a party wall between them. 

 

Porter said smoke alarms are probably more important than sprinklers.  

 

Stogsdill agreed and added that installing smoke detectors and alarms is one of the biggest savers in not only lives but property.

 

Craft says that he comes from the standpoint that when the board started looking at this issue its stance was that the board would be hard put to go against something that was essentially a fire and safety issue. Seems to me the duplex represents in this case the omission of the sprinklers.

 

Porter said that the board was not treating duplexes any different than single family.  

 

Craft said that he understands that but he is raising the question that maybe we should because there is an innocent family at risk where he doesn’t see that in single family. He said he’s not going to push hard for this but he wants to raise that issue. Essentially the only difference is there is only one wall you have no control over instead of 2.

 

Stogsdill said there is a 2 hr wall in a town home instead of a one hour wall in a duplex, so in ICC’s mind there is no greater risk in a duplex.

 

Porter said that he shares Craft’s concerns. He believes there are a lot of unresolved issues. The technical committee that studied this recommended against adoption in to the main body of the code. They recommended that it be left in the appendix. That was overridden by the body as a whole. As a technical person he just has problem with things like that. 

 

Craft asked if there was discussion by the ICC member body on the issue.

 

Stogsdill said there were more members that voted on this than any other issue. What he has read is that it was a “bullet Ballot” they came in voted and then left. He said that in fact there has been talk of revising the voting process where there would be limited representation from one jurisdiction.

 

Craft asked if there was any information of fire related injuries in duplex fires in the City of Lawrence.

 

Simmons replied that the information was probably available from the fire department. 

 

Craft said in his head there is a little more of a risk in a duplex.

 

Ezell asked how long has it been in the code that the duplex separating walls had to go to the roof deck.

 

Stogsdill said that it has been in place for quite some time. He doesn’t think it has been strenuously enforced. He believes it goes back at least a couple of code cycles. He thinks that many of the current duplexes that have been built are not up to the current code.

 

Craft asked if a duplex was being remodeled and the plumbing and electrical was being brought up to code and if a violation of the fire separation was observed by an inspector what would be the city’s policy?  

 

Simmons said that it is current policy that if you don’t touch it you don’t have to bring it up to code, unless it is a serious life safety violation. The inspectors would most likely note it and bring it to the attention of the contractor.

 

Ezell asked what if it was built in violation.

 

Simmons said the inspectors may make a note of it.  She is not sure the new contractor would have to correct it. 

 

Craft asked about smoke detectors.

 

Simmons replied that if the room you are working in requires a smoke detector then you will have to install one, but you wouldn’t have to go back through the entire residence and hardwire every location.

 

Craft asked if the board be open to a letter of memorandum to the staff stating that it has a concern about fire separation in existing duplexes. If they are in one for a permit of some type and observe a violation that it be noted.

 

Porter said the City should be cognizant of the codes when it does its inspections. We might ask for the City’s position on this issue.

 

Craft wanted to know what the City’s current practice was.

 

Porter proposed the Board meet on the 19th of November to review the current code amendments and compare them to any proposed changes to the 2009 IRC.  Porter said he would like to establish a precedent of reviewing the new codes in the year they come out, approving or not approving then moving on.

 

Craft asked if it was possible for staff to email the list of current amendments to the Board.

 

Simmons replied staff will provide that information.

 

Mark Mills said the plumbing board unanimously agreed they would prefer to see the requirement for automatic sprinklers remain in the appendices and adopted if the local jurisdiction chose to do so rather than mandated. He also noted there were some design criteria in the plumbing code for residential sprinklers that the Plumbing Board considered amending. There is a code section that says that no back flow prevention is required on separate water system if the system is installed for fire sprinklers.  The Board feels this may be a typo and they are checking with the ICC regarding the text.

 

Ezell asked if it was required to have a separate water lines system.

 

Mills replied it was permissible to keep it separate or the system can use the potable water line.

 

Ezell asked why install a separate water system?  

 

Mills replied that was the way most sprinklers were run here in Lawrence.

 

Craft asked at what point would the separate system “T” off.

 

Mills replied at the water supply before the shutoff. Mills explained that a mixed water system has enough volume of water going through the lines to not require backflow prevention where as a sprinklers system’s water becomes stagnant and could pollute the water supply and therefore requires backflow prevention.

 

Craft ask what type of back flow was required.

 

Mills responded a dual backflow or double check. Mills discussed possible amendments to the plumbing code to prevent stagnant water in residential sprinklers contaminating the potable water. Mills also noted fire sprinkler systems required a specific type of PEX water line which is more heat resistant.

 

The Board discussed design characteristics and installation requirements of PEX waterline.

 

Porter noted the sprinklers provisions were in the appendix of the previous code. If the board was going to move them back to the appendix it should do so by adding an appendix chapter.

 

Porter asked if there were any other issues, hearing none he entertained a motion to adjourn.

 

Stogsdill motioned to adjourn, Seconded by Ezell. Motion passed 4-0