City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting

November 19^th, 2009 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Mike Porter Chairperson , Mark Stogsdill, John Craft, Janet Smalter Vice-Chairperson, Neal Ezell
MEMBERS ABSENT:	None
STAFF  PRESENT:	Barry Walthall - Building Codes Administrator Katherine Simmons – Plans Examiner
Guess Present :	None
Ex-Officio	Adrian D. Jones – Senior Plans Examiner

Meeting called to order 11:42

Review and approve minutes from October 15^th, 2009

Smalter moved to accept minutes as written, seconded by Ezell. Motion passed 5-0

Term limits

Porter said he discussed with Jones extending his term through the current code adoption process.

Jones indicated in order to extend the term a letter of request had to be forwarded to the mayor. Porter asked the board was there any objection to his term being extended trough the adoption process. There was no objection.

Stogsdill asked what were the dates for the terms of the current members.

Walthall said typically the board members get 2 terms. If they fill an unexpired term they get 2 full terms after that. It shouldn’t be a problem to extend through the code review process. Staff would greatly appreciate that service from Porter and recognize the service of all the board members understanding that it is a lot of work and sacrifice and time that you put in for the community. And the City does appreciate it.

Smalter noted the terms were 3 years.

Porter said he looked and the City’s website which indicated Stogsdill and Smalter terms expired November of 2010.

Walthall stated staff would send a request to the City Manager and the mayor would make a decision.

Amendments to the IRC

Porter stated the Board has proposed removing the requirement for automatic sprinklers from one and two family dwellings. One option was to move it to the appendix as in the current code. Since there is no existing appendix containing the provisions he proposed to amend the language to say that section R313.2 is permissible rather than being required. That would mean if a builder wanted to put in residential sprinklers they could and go through all of the requirements. He thought that was an easy way of handling it for now.

Craft motioned to approve the amendment. Seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 5-0.

Porter suggested the Board add language which stated the lateral deck load connection illustrated by figure 502.2.3 was permissible construction but not required. 

Stogsdill asked what code section excluded this region from those provisions.

Porter stated the ICC commentary on the code changes indicated the attachment methods illustrated was not a requirement but if used would comply for the most stringent seismic areas. 

Simmons added for clarification the proposed amendments would apply only to the figure and not the code section.

Porter agreed.

Ezell motioned to adopt the amendment to clarify section R502.2.2.3 deck lateral load connection.  Seconded by Stogsdill. Motion passed 5-0.

Porter asked if staff had reviewed the current amendments to see if they were applicable to the new code.

The Board discussed the current amendments and compared them to the same sections 2009 IRC. 

Stogsdill asked if an existing home was being remodeled at what point would the City require a home with non-code complying bedroom egress window to be brought up to current code. The current amendment talks about basement remodels.

Walthall replied many older ranch style homes may not comply with the current codes.  If the windows were installed legally to the code at the time of construction, then the city would not require them to be brought up to current code. If the bedroom is altered or the use of the room is changed such as from an office to a bedroom then a code complying egress window will be required.

Stogsdill asked if a builder remodeled 70% of house and did not touch the room would the bedroom have to be brought up to code. The current code requires existing basement bedrooms to have egress windows if more than 50% of the basement is finished.  He asked if that was a “loophole”.

Simmons said she thought the intent of the code was that in a basement finish the remodel typically converted unfinished space to finished space. For basements there was only one way out which was the basement stair as opposed to grade level which usually had more than one means of escape.

Jones said the topic of egress window sizes had recently come up in a conversation with Rich Barr the City fire marshal. It was his understanding the code required egress windows size was based on a firefighter being able to rescue occupants while in full fire gear. It was much more difficult to rescue from below grade in undersized windows.  Rich Barr indicated that minimum size egress window was 4.4 square feet. 

Walthall said if there was an alteration and the house had a bedroom with an existing egress window below 4.4 square feet the City would not except that as a sleeping room.

The Board discussed the amendment to allow the reduction of ducts in attics from R-8 to R-6 if the ducts were covered by blown in insulation. 

Jones said the practical application of that amendment has not produced the desired intent. At the time of the amendment the Board discussed how air ducts in attics could be run in the bottom portion of the attic and insulation would be blown over the top thereby increasing the R-value.  In speaking to the Mechanical inspector rarely if ever was that the case. Also at that time R-8 ducts were not readily available.  That has changed.

Craft said R-8 is readily available now.

Porter suggested the board not carry that amendment forward.  Porter said if the Board wanted to carry forward the amendment which allowed a tradeoff for Slab edge insulation in lieu of a high efficiency furnace it would just have to change the notation letter. 

Craft said he spoke to an insulation salesman and was told that some of the slab on grade homes were installed with foundation insulation placed in the trench.

Ezell said if you don’t insulate the slab edge you’re wasting your time. He only knows of one builder who has insulated the slab edge. The builders he’s talked to who have tried to come up with a solution say it is very difficult to insulate the slab edge in a practical way.

Stogsdill said that Tenants to Home Owners does insulate their slab edge with foam covered by tin.

Porter asked if the amendment was working.

Ezell said practically everyone installs a high efficiency furnace, because they are so inexpensive now.  

Jones said it should be noted that a new change for this code cycle is that Rescheck no longer allows for a UA trade off for mechanical equipment.  Tradeoffs are only allowed for building envelope components. 

Ezell suggested the Board increase the efficiency for the furnace tradeoff to a 95% efficient furnace.

Craft asked if anyone has noticed if the slab edge is cold.

Ezell said absolutely, during the last cold winter some of his plumbers brought the pipes up under the cabinet near the outside wall and the pipes were freezing.  There’s no doubt that is a huge benefit to insulate the slab edge. Ezell said he ran an analysis in Rescheck where he put 9” of insulation on the slab edge and wall exposed to the air and not any further down on the footing and it reduced loss through foundation and edge by 85%.

Craft said there is going to resistance on the board to pass an amendment and not know how it will be implemented. Craft said he is all for slab edge insulation. He either forms in the insulation of the monolithic pour or uses the thermal mass wall system where 3” of insulation is in the footing supported by ties. He protected the slab edge with either sheet metal or stucco. There was certainly extra expense involved.

Porter said that he has not seen any change in slab edge insulation since the Board reviewed it for the last code cycle.

Porter asked if someone would like to entertain a motion that the Board adopt the same amendments to the code as it had for the 2006 IRC with the exception of changing the note letter for the slab edge and delete the duct amendment. 

Motion by Ezell to carry forward the current amendments in the 2006 IRC with the exception of the amendment to section N1103.2.1 duct insulation.  Seconded by Stogsdill.

Porter asked if there were any comments.

Stogsdill asked that staff verify that all amendments were discussed.

Jones asked if that motion included the administrative amendments.

Porter replied that it did and also included the amendment for an exception to basement wall insulation N1102.2.6 in the current code.

Ezell said he wouldn’t be opposed to increasing the furnace efficiency for the slab edge trade off. 95% efficient furnace is what everyone is now considering a high efficiency furnace. That may not sound like much but it forces a switch to a 2 stage furnace. 

Porter asked where the tradeoff was.

Ezell said he would research the numbers and report back at the next meeting.

Craft said that for the record he could not support the motion because he was not ready to give up on slab edge insulation. He would like to see that changed and there has to be a time when it gets started.

Smalter said that she thinks the Board is in agreement, but there is just no resolution of how to construct it. That is the problem.

Craft said insulating the slab edge is the one area where the board can increase comfort of the inhabitants the most.

Porter asked if there was a solution.

Craft said there was but that it added cost and it changes building practices. He is aware of the resistance but for the record he will be voting no.

Ezell said that there were a lot more people experimenting. He thinks we need one more code cycle.  He said that for the 2012 cycle he will be the one who will be saying it’s time, but for right now the methods are either too impractical or too expensive.   

Porter asked if there was any further discussion.  Seeing none he asked for a vote on the motion. Motion Passed 4-1

Ezell said he had 4 more code sections to consider for amendments. Section N1103.2.2 required duct pressure testing. Energy star required testing on only 1 out of 7 installations as long as you’re dealing with someone who has done it before.  There is a choice of rough-in or post construction testing. Ezell proposed an amendment which reads ”Where testing is required to determine air leakage of a duct system the code official shall be permitted to require random testing with no fewer than 1 in 7.”

Craft asked what would be the position of the inspector if the test fails. Tear out sheetrock and tape up ducts until it passes?  What does that mean for the other 6 units that didn’t get tested?   

Ezell replied the contractor would be required to fix it then he would be tested on the next one.

Porter noted the wording said “at least 1 in 7”.

Walthall said there might be an equity issue with that ratio.

Craft said a contractor that was tested more than 1 in 7 might consider that as being unfair or picked on.

Stogsdill asked if the 1 in 7 was for the builder or mechanical contractor.

Walthall said those cost would be passed on and if you hit that 7^th one with the same builder then he sees that a potential issue.

Ezell said another issue would be the foundation anchorage. R403.1.6. this code section requires interior braced wall panels to be anchored to the foundation as they are for exterior walls.  The third issue is section R312.1 the guardrail provision.  This new code section establishes a new way to measure the height above grade for walking surfaces which will require a guard. The new method is to measure 36” out from the walking surface.  The last item is section R302.1 fire separation distance.

Porter suggested the board review Ezell’s suggested amendments and be prepared at the next meeting to vote on those amendments and whether or not to adopt the 2009 IRC.

The Board discussed methods of duct testing.

Meeting Adjourned