Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/1994 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of Adjustments MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Tuesday, May 31, 1994 4:00PM Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears, Paul Swoboda, Wick Mc Kean, Bill Lewis, Robert Mooney, Jim Holster, Tom Wilson, Jean C. Bailey MEMBERS ABSENT: Danny Sustaire STAFF PRESENT: Building Official David Moore, Planning Technician Natalie Thomas, Fire Marshal George Spain, City Planner Jane Kee, Fire Inspector Tim Dedear, Development Coordinator Shirley Volk, Plans Examiner Keith Roach, Senior Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik, Chief Electrical Inspector Robert Williams, Code Enforcement Coordinator Wes Castolenia, and Board Secretary Susan Macdonald AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order. The meeting was called to order by Dan Sears. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. There were no visitors. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Administer oath to new member, Dr. Jean Bailey. Planning Technician Natalie Thomas administered the oath of office to new member Dr. Jean Bailey. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approve minutes from meeting February 17, 1994. Wick Mc Kean made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting on February 17, 1994. Tom Wilson seconded the motion which passed unopposed (8-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing for the consideration of a variance request to the requirement to install a fire sprinkler system in a Group A Assembly occupancy at 1501 FM 2818 4106. Applicant is Acrofit Gymnastics, Inc. The owner of the property is James Griffin Building Official David Moore presented the staff report to the Board. He stated that in Section 901.8.7 of the College Station Building Code local amendments require that an approved sprinkler system be provided in all structures when the total building area exceeds fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. He continued to say that Section 901.8.6 requires a sprinkler system for Group A Assembly occupancies (except churches) when the total square footage exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet. Mr. Moore said the applicant states 35-40 occupants are an average occupant content. He stated the occupant content and load is calculated from the building size not from the amount using the structure. He continued to say re-construction was presumably initiated without a building permit being issued. Mr. Moore explained the total door dimensioned width is adequate to egress occupants for emergency conditions. 36" X 6 = 2161.2 = 1080 occupant egress 7111 square feet net =474 occupant load 15 Wick Mc Kean inquired if there are separations in the building and the reason it is not sprinkled. Fire Marshall Spain replied that the building was built with separations to meet the requirement of a 15,000 square feet area not 5,000 square feet. He continued to say that the plans were reviewed by personnel who are no longer with the City. Jean Bailey asked what is the maximum occupancy. Building Official David Moore replied 474 persons. He continued to say that when a contractor/owner gives what they ascertain as the maximum occupancy load that is not the actual maximum occupancy load calculated according to the Standard Building Code. Legally, they could have a different occupant load that would be contrary to what the code would allow. Jim Holster inquired if a sign could be posted with a lower number than the actual maximum occupancy. Building Official David more stated no, that a sign should be posted for the appropriate maximum occupancy load. Jim Holster asked for clarification about the Group A Assembly occupancy requirements. David Moore explained that a gymnasium is an assembly occupancy according to SBCCI. Paul Swoboda commented that when he figured the square footage, it was 6700 square feet. Mr. Moore stated he figured the net floor area by the code requirements. David Moore commented that sprinklering as personnel protection. He continued to say that Mr. Spain and him agree about sprinklering. Dan Sears opened the public hearing for in anyone to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. CBA Minutes May 31, 1994 Page 2 Ernest Bruchez, on behalf of Acrofit Gymnastics Inc., approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. Bruchez stated that this facility is used for a gym for children and Acrofit wants to insure safety for the children. Mr. Bruchez continued to say that Acrofit is asking for the variance because from Acrofit's prospective it makes common sense. Mr. Bruchez presented slides of the building to the Board. He stated the building capacity is 400 according to the gross square footage. He continued to say that there are fire hydrants within 70 feet of the front of the building, 60 feet away in the back of the building, and there are doors available in the rear for exiting. Mr. Bruchez also passed out a proposed layout of the facility. Mr. Bruchez stated there is a two hour rated fire wall on the east end of the building and another fire wall retained in the facility. The exercise floor area is approximately 1000 square feet, the viewing area/office are 500 square feet, and the restrooms are 100 square feet. It is important for the areas to be open for people visiting the gym and viewing the events. They have approximately 30-40 people occupying the building at any given time. The SBCCI classifies it as a gym because there is no other classification. Mr. Bruchez continued to say there are six doors and there is an exiting capacity of 500 people. He believes there is no fire hazard.. Mr. Bruchez stated that they believe that this is truly a fact situation. James Holmes, co-owner of Acrofit, approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. Holmes, explained to the Board the type of equipment and the location of the equipment that Acrofit has. Bill Connaster, owner, approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. Connaster explained to the Board some of the scheduled activities that Acrofit has. He commented that it is not physically possible for 400 people to be in the Acrofit gymnasium. Mr. Holmes commented that the only way to have more people is for bleachers to be installed for meets. Bill Lewis asked if the granted variance stays with the property for the rest of the life of the property. David Moore replied that the granted would stay with the property as Iong as the same occupancy is maintained. Ernest Bruchez commented that if it was retail space, then it would have to be over 15,000 square feet for it to be sprinkled. James Griffin, owner of the property, approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. Griffin stated the building is made of concrete blocks and every 10,000 square feet there is a concrete wall that meets the building code with two hour fire walls. He continued to say as a father and the owner, if I thought there was any chance for a disaster, I would want the installation of a sprinkler system. CBA Minutes May 31, 1994 Page 3 Fire Marshal George Spain explained that if another occupant that fell under the classification of a Group A Assembly occupancy, like a restaurant, moved into the lease space, then they would also not have to meet the code because the variance was granted. Dr. Bailey inquired if it was classified as educational then would it have to be sprinkled. Mr. Spain replied that it would depend on the type of educational occupancy. Wick Mc Kean asked for clarification on the type of variance the Board can grant. Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik replied that a variance can be granted as to a certain classification; however, it applies across the board for anything under that classification. She continued to say as far as limiting the use, the Board cannot issue a variance as to limiting the usage. However, if the owner wants to limit the use voluntarily, he can, but the enforcement is questionable. Wick Mc Kean inquired if it fit under another the classification. Mrs. Nemcik replied that Mr. Moore has stated it has to fit into another definition reasonably. Mr. Moore commented that the assembly classification is more restrictive than the education classification. He continued to say he would not recommend changing the classification. Mr. Bruchez listed the occupancy types under a Group A Assembly from the NFPA Section 4.1.2. Building Official Moore read definition of an educational occupancy according to the Standard Building Code Congress International. He continued to say the reason SBCCI classified the property as a Group A Assembly is because of the consensus across the United States. The requirement for a sprinkler system is a local amendment; however, the SBCCI is more restrictive. George Spain commented that some mercantile occupancies will have to be sprinkled if the property is over 15,000 square feet. Mr. Spain continued to say that a four hour fire wall can be installed that divides the building into two buildings. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Roxanne Nemcik commented that the application for the variance request will have to be amended if the classification is changed and the agenda will have to be posted again. City Planner Jane Kee inquired if the business occupancy and assembly occupancy are sub classifications of each other. David Moore replied in the negative. Roxanne Nemcik commented that the Board could table the request, ask staff to reinterpret the request, and bring the request back to the board for reconsideration. However, if the Board reclassifies it, the agenda must be reposted. CBA Minutes May 31, 1994 Page 4 Wick made a motion to table the variance request and reconsider the occupancy as a new classification. Tom Wilson seconded which passed (5-3, Mooney, Bailey, Swoboda). AGENDA ITEM NO. b: Public hearing for the consideration of a variance request to the Ordinance 1919 Amendment Appendix 2.A.9 requirement that all commercial structures install an outside service disconnecting means at 301 Texas. Applicant is Alton Hensarling. Property Owner is Supertel Hospitality, Inc. Paul Swoboda abstained for considering this agenda item due to a conflict of interest. Building Official David Moore presented the staff report to the Board. He stated that local Amendment number 9 of Ordinance number 1919 specifically states the location of service disconnecting means to be on the outside of commercial buildings or structures. This requirement allows for fast and easy disconnection of power to the building by emergency personnel, should a circumstances occur involving electrical hazards or fire. Project Review Committee reports were mailed to the owner of the property, Supertel Hospitality, Inc., on June 3, 1993 stating this specific requirement must be within compliance of the City of College Station Amendments. David confirmed with Chief Electrical Inspector Robert Williams that the outside disconnect was stubbed out outside the building originally during the rough in inspection. Chairman Dan Sears open pubic hearing for anyone to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Brian White, representative of the applicant, approached the board to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. White stated the slab was already poured before he arrived on the job site. He continued to say that the outside disconnect was not shown on his set of plans. He stated he has built in 39 other cities and it has not been a requirement.. Mr. White stated that the electrical department can disconnect service at anytime because the building will be monitor 24 hours a day by Besco Security. He said that the owner of the property has the option to supply a key to the emergency services. He continued to say that to install an outside disconnect would be very costly at this point in the construction. He said he feels like the building is readily accessible and is protected. Mr. White said it was overlooked and the plans were approved for permit. Wick Mc Kean clarified that the prints were approved without this change. Building Official David Moore stated that the Project Review Committee report was contingent on the building permit. Mr. White commented that the disconnect would be placed within four feet of the main breaker and within three feet of the panel box. CBA Minutes May 31, 1994 Page 3 Tom Wilson inquired if there is an internal fire, what are the other means of disconnect. Mr. White replied that if the fire was internal, the power could not be disconnected in the panel box. Fire Marshal George Spain commented that it is imperative that an outside disconnect be installed to make it safer for the firefighters in an emergency situation, Wick Mc Kean made a motion to deny the variance request because the applicant was advised before the issuance of the building permit. Tom seconded the motion which passed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Tom Wilson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bill Lewis seconded the motion which carried unopposed (8-0). APPROVED: Chairman Dan Sears ATTEST: A("14 ' r, :cretz Susan acdonalc CBA Minutes May 31, 1994 Page 6