Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1994 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of Adjustments MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Wednesday, August 17, 1994 4:00 PM Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears, Jean C. Bailey, James Holster, Tom Wilson, and Paul Swoboda MEMBERS ABSENT: Danny Sustaire and Wick McKean STAFF PRESENT: Building Official David Moore, Fire Chief Bill Kennady, Fire Marshal George Spain, 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: Approve minutes from meeting on June 29, 1994, Torn Wilson made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting on June 29, 1994. Jean C. Bailey seconded the motion which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing for the consideration of a variance request to use a one or two hour rated fire wall around a tire storage area at 2298 Texas. Applicant is Engineer Constructors. Owner of the property is Londontown Properties. Building Official David Moore presented the staff report to the Board. He stated that the applicant has requested to use a one or two hour fire wall separation for a storage accessory occupancy that is a mixed occupancy with a business occupancy. The accessory occupancy requires a three hour fire wall according to the Standard Building Code. The storage area is to be used to store tires and a used oil tank. The Fire Department is concerned about the combustible materials of the tires in the storage area. The Fire Department has established the storage area will contain a Class 5 commodity. He continued to say that it presents a special fire hazard and requires protection with the three hour fire wall. Jean C. Bailey asked if a one hour fire wall would be sufficient. David Moore replied no, due to the combustibility of the tires, it should be a three hour fire wall. Dan Sears inquired about the difference in construction between a two and a three hour fire wall. David Moore replied the difference is economic and the construction technique. David Moore commented that a hazardous occupancy is the most restrictive in the Standard Building Code. He continued to say that the hazardous occupancy only requires a two hour fire wall separation between a business occupancy and a hazardous occupancy; however, due to the materials that are going to be stored, a three hour fire wall is required. Chairman Dan Sears opened the public hearing to anyone for speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Gerald Prickette, President of Engineered Constructors, approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. He stated that the plans he submitted are a generic set of plans that are used for building all over the United States. Mr. Prickette continued to say that his company just completed four new buildings in different cities in Texas and did not have to meet this requirement. He said he believes that the used oil tank is located outside the building, not inside as David Moore stated. He continued to say that a three hour fire wall would require a complete redesign of the slab. He said to construct a three hour fire wall, that concrete blocks filled with concrete would be used, which would also be expensive. Fire Marshal George Spain approached the Board. He stated in researching this situation, Fire Marshals throughout the state were contacted. The result of the research indicated a three hour fire wall would be required. Mr. Spain continued to say that in another building code, the Uniform Building Code, requires a one hour fire wall; however, the City of College Station has adopted the Standard Building Code. Mr. Spain stated that with the nature of tires they can be ignited, extinguished, and then re-ignited. He continued to say that combustible fluids do not have that nature. He also commented that the original plans show a used oil tank in the same storage area as the tires. Jim Holster asked if Discount Tire has a fire wall. George Spain replied yes and the storage area for the tires is located in the back of the building. Fire Chief Bill Kennady approached the Board. He commented that David Moore has done a good job trying to follow the code. He continued to say that he is from another city in the country that was under another code that required a one hour fire wall. Chief Kennady stated that it is a Building Department requirement not a Fire Department requirement. Chairman Dan Sears closed the public hearing. CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 2 Dan Sears commented that a two hour fire wall would be fairly substantial in this situation. David Moore commented that he thinks it would be adequate to have a two hour fire wall in this situation. He continued to say that the other code does address a one hour fire wall, but he thinks that it would be insufficient. Mr. Moore said that classification of the fire hazard is considered and the amount of fire from this building would be extreme. Paul Swoboda inquired on what the fire wall was separating. Mr, Moore replied that it was the business area and the storage area. Paul Swoboda asked if it falls under the 30 percent storage in the Standard Building Code. David Moore replied that it is addressed in the code as a non hazardous use for storage use, and it has already been determined that this could not be used as a non hazardous classification. Tom Wilson stated that a one hour fire wall is insufficient and a three hour fire wall is too restrictive;therefore, he thinks a two hour fire wall is a good compromise. Tom Wilson made a motion to approve the variance request with a two hour fire wall. Paul Swoboda seconded which passed unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing for the consideration of a variance request to the 1991 Standard Plumbing Code to allow CPVC pipe and fittings to be used for water distribution inside the buildings located at 2250 Dartmouth. Applicant is WI Construction. Owner of the property is Troy Asset Advisors, Inc. Building Official David Moore presented the staff report to the Board. He stated that this action has been initiated because Mr. Johnny Rowe had called and inquired about the use of CPVC inside buildings. He explained to Mr. Rowe the local amendments that are in effect in the City and that is prohibitory to use this type of material inside the buildings. He then informed Mr. Rowe that he did have the option of filing a variance request with the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals to appeal the local amendment and/or the Standard Plumbing Code. Mr. Moore stated under Sections 1205.1.1 and 1205.1.2 in the 1991 Standard Plumbing Code address the usage of materials for distribution of potable water throughout the water service pipes and fittings. Likewise, Sections 1210.1 and 1210.1.2 allow certain materials to be used for water distribution in the secondary portion in the water system regarding type of pipe, tubing, and fittings. Both of the code sections of the 1991 Standard Plumbing Code do allow the usage of CPVC. Section 1005 pertains to strains and stresses that would not allow for usage of CPVC under slab foundations due to the physical connections of fittings that are required for installation. Likewise, copper piping is not allowed to have any physical connections whatsoever under the slab and has to be continuous from the outside to the inside where it terminates in the building. Local city amendments of Ordinance 1919 delete the use of plastic piping from the Standard Plumbing Code for water conveyance within a building. Mr. Moore continued to say that there is a local amendment that is very prohibitory of CPVC. Polybutylene and some other plastics differ chemically. There was a lot of mobile home usage of polybutylene. As a result, several cities decided to initiate acts locally to prohibit the use of CPVC, because it did not perform adequately and there was some substandard installations. He CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 3 stated that there is a concern of release of chemical vapors that are emitted during the time of a fire, which is a relative hazard to firefighters. Due to that concern, the Fire Department does not like to fight fires where any of these vapors could be inhaled by a firefighter. He stated that polybutylene is also in furniture and other materials in a building. Chairman Dan Sears opened the public hearing for anyone to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Johnny Rowe approached the Board to speak in favor of the variance request. The tape is not discernible due to Mr. Rowe's movement and volume while he was passing out information and answering questions to the Board. Mr. Rowe passed out samples of the CPVC pipe, copies of the ASTM standards, and notebooks with detailed information about the piping, and a summary of the of the detailed information. Mr. Rowe stated that CPVC is no more like polybutylene than tin is like copper. Both of those are plastics, but the base compounds and the molecular structure is entirely different from polybutylene. Mr. Rowe read the summary that he passed out to the Board. He stated that CPVC is an industrial grade pipe invented in 1959 to be used in paper mills to transport hot sulfuric and hydrochloric acids. It cannot rust, it cannot scale, or it cannot pit. It does not leach any contaminates into the water system. It is quiet and virtually eliminates water hammer and because it is a natural insulator it keeps the hot water hotter from the heater to the tap. He commented that is the support for it. In addition CPVC is not just a . . . it is also used in industry. . . all the way up to 16". . . you can see it is. . technically here in the city CPVC is on. . .this is the industry right now. . .Currently CPVC is being used within the city . . .the standard CPVC family in Texas is. , . years ago. . .that is what is used. . .which, . .t❑ what JPI Construction intends to use for this project , . .solvent well cement. ,here is what we use a common cement. . .elbow. . .alright. . .ok.. . .the homeowner. . .goes throughout. .there is a benefit. .there are some homeowners. . .the environment where you got people. .you got to pay for the utilities usually. The owner of the property. . .and if they he can do to make his apartment. . .so. . .that is why he is interested in this. First of all it is an energy efficient system. That insulates rather than. muffles the sound, so you virtually eliminate any noise from rushing water, singing pipes. This product will not. . . It reduces water hammer particularly with these single family valves that alot of the builders use these days, Moehn and Delta. The shutting on and off is so positive, that when the water is shut off the water, the water ends up vibrating back through the pipe causing noise or water hammer. He stated CPVC stops that. It eliminates scale or corrosion. Nothing. . .get right now, if we put. . . No contamination of the water supply. . Completely and totally clean system. .water will pick up more contaminates from the faucet then it will form going throughout the pipes. It eliminates electrolysis, obviously. . .this is one of the main causes for pitting. . .and it does meet the EPA water purity standards. He continued to say that in a nut shell he has told the Board everything that is in the summary. . . .in Texas alone there are 5,000 units that are being built this year with Flow Guard Gold. JPI Construction will build about 9,000 units this year. Mr. Rowe continued to say that there has been a problem with this product, that there have never been any lawsuits against his company or any of the manufacturers. Mr. Rowe asked if the Board had any questions or concerns. Mr. Rowe stated that CPVC is not just a water pipe. It is used in industry up to a 16" pipe. It is already being used in College Station for fire sprinkler systems. The standard water piping in a multi family dwelling in Texas is CPVC. One of the big issues has been how to connect the product. The connection has been with a solvent cement. He stated the builders enjoy CPVC much more than copper because the insurance claims are low CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 4 and there are some costs advantages. Historically it does cost less than copper. He continued to say that the homeowner is concerned to make his property quiet and more energy efficient. CPVC insulates the water, prevents condensation, reduces water hammer, eliminates scale and corrosion, prevents contamination to the water supply, eliminates electrolysis, and meets EPA water purity standards. He said in Houston, there are 5,000 projects that use this product. In the 35 years of production, there have not been any lawsuits. Jean C. Bailey inquired in cases of vibration, is this product used with fittings in places in an earthquake zone. Mr. Rowe replied that the product is not used in California; however, it is approved under slab in the Standard Plumbing Code. He said the Standard Plumbing Code was the first code to approve the product in 1974. He continued to say that HUD, FHA, UBC, and SBC have approved all applications of CPVC in those codes. There are few codes in the United States that CPVC is not approved in. Mr. Rowe continued to say that ten years ago California and the EPA started an environmental impact study. He said that CPVC is approved under slab in all the codes; however, California, New York and Arkansas have a state ban. Jim Holster asked how many codes in the United States that did not approve CPVC. Mr, Rowe replied that his company is in the process of having CPVC re-evaluated for its approval in these areas. He said in Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Corpus Christi, and the entire valley area CPVC is approved. Paul Swoboda asked about the operating temperature rating of the pipe. Mr. Rowe replied that the operating temperature at 50 year service and 100 psi is 180 degrees. He commented that CPVC is also used for T& P relief lines and that service would be 210 degrees for 48 hours. It fails when using ambient temperature water at about a 1000 psi. His company is rated as a system and the pipe is also rated. Paul Swoboda asked if the product tends to get brittle over temperature cycling when it gets hot and cold several times. Mr. Rowe replied actually that was one disadvantage of the piping. One of the big advantages is there is a newer model, it is good in cold weather and the freezing reaction is better than cooper. Paul Swoboda inquired if Flow Guard Gold is better than CPVC and is the variance request is for CPVC or Flow Guard Gold. Mr. Rowe replied that Flow Guard Gold is a newer model of CPVC and that the variance request is to use either one. Jean Bailey asked about the costs difference between copper and CPVC. Mr. Rowe replied that CPVC is 15-30% less than copper and the flow rate is the same as copper. Paul Swoboda confirmed that it was schedule 20 and asked if it was made thinner. Tom Wilson asked if the fittings are CPVC or Flow Guard Gold. Mr. Rowe stated, once again, that Flow Guard Gold is a newer model of CPVC. He said his company is under very stringent manufacturing guidelines and everything is monitored every month which is part of their quality control. His company is vitally concerned about their reputation, because of their cousin polybutylene. He stated that his company is very careful that everything is manufactured to their specifications not just to the ASTM. CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 5 Tom Wilson inquired if the builders were proposing to use CPVC under the slab or would it be roughed in within the copper under the slab and then make the transition. Mr. Rowe replied that on this particular project they would not use it under the slab. Mr. Moore commented that when Mr. Rowe was speaking about under slab usage of this particular product, he would not like to see this product used or any other product where there is a pressurized system under the slab. He continued to say that connections with copper or metal connections are not made below the slab. If it was allowed then there would be failures. He stated that he is not saying the product would not perform adequately or that the product is not of quality, but the installation procedures that are required by the craftsman would possibly come into question. Any type of connections, other than for drain lines, such as we normally use for building drain lines, he would highly suggest not to consider this for any usage underneath the slab. Mr. Moore continued to say as far as above the slab use or within the building, that will be for the Board to judge that data and material on its own merits and make a judgment. But he would suggest to not consider the usage of CPVC or any other product where there is a physical connection under the slab. Dan Sears clarified that if there was a continuous piece, then would there be an objection to use it under the slab. Mr. Moore replied he still would object because with metal there is more rigidity. He said he has seen plastics of various kinds stubbed through concrete or slab foundation; as a result, people kick them, they are fractured, and they are broken many times. He said it may be a durable product, but he would rather it not be stubbed up through slabs, even if it was continuous in that application. Torn Wilson commented that he would suggest that perhaps copper is more flexible coming through a slab if it was kicked, pushed, or pulled by the slab movement. That plastic may be too rigid. David Moore commented that copper is more malleable than plastic. Torn Wilson confirmed that this variance request is only for a specific project not to change the code or ordinance. Mr. Moore replied it was a variance request for a specific project. He said that a code change would have to go through the normal process of the Board's recommendation and then approval of the City Council before a change of the local amendment takes effect. He continued to say that the Board has the authority to make this determination on a case by case basis. Chris Mushinski, the Plumbing Inspector from the City of Bryan, approached the Board. He stated that he agreed with David Moore. He continued to say that his major concern is with the installations under the slab. He stated in this area, concrete is guaranteed to do two things, get hard and crack. He said that the ground shifts all the time in this area and that is a major concern. Dan Sears asked Mr. Mushinski if he was knowledgeable of any failure rates. Mr. Mushinski replied that there have not been any problems with copper, but when polybutylene was used, Bryan had problems that occurred. Currently, there is some polybutylene being replaced in some apartments. Tom Wilson inquired if Mr. Mushiniski had seen this product installed in Bryan. Mr. Mushinski replied in the negative. CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 6 Jean C. Bailey inquired if it was installed in the foundation like copper will it bend and maybe get a pin hole causing a big leak in the foundation. Mr. Rowe replied that CPVC is also made in a coiled pipe. Tom Wilson inquired if there was a soft CPVC and a hard CPVC and how does it get coiled up. Mr. Rowe replied that is flexible. Tom Wilson inquired how long has this has been on the market. Mr. Rowe replied four years. Tom Wilson confirmed that they have not had any installation problems. Mr. Rowe replied that there have been installation problems, but there has not been any litigation such as with copper. Chairman Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Paul Swoboda commented that he used many of their products before in other areas. He stated that it is a good product and it would probably work great in this situation; however, the problem that he has is with it is temperature cycling. He continued to say that it gets brittle over years. He said the other problem that he has seen is with the college students that will be working on it over the years and that is generally where he has seen failures. He stated that the biggest problem he has is that there is a City Ordinance that prohibits its use and if the variance is granted, then the Ordinance would be rewritten. Jean C. Bailey commented that the Board just did the same procedure with the preceding variance request. Paul Swoboda commented that is another interpretation. Jean Bailey replied that is the purpose of the Board. Paul Swoboda continued to say that he would recommend instead of trying one at a time, to get a product like this approved, is for somebody to work on changing City Ordinance, instead of granting a variance to do something like this on this large of a project. Mr. Rowe stated he understood Mr. Swoboda's concern that they do have plans to address that concern. Jean C. Bailey inquired whether the builder or the contractor considered the City Ordinance before they decided to use this product. Mr, Rowe stated they assumed the CPVC would be approved. They did not know College Station had a local amendment prohibiting the use. Jean C. Bailey made a motion to grant the variance request but not use the CPVC, it must be Flow Guard Gold. No one seconded the motion. Toni Wilson made a motion, based that it is not approved by a code in the City at this time, to deny the variance. Paul Swoboda seconded the motion which passed (4-1, Jean C. Bailey opposed). Mr. Moore commented that due to Paul Swoboda's statement that maybe the local amendment under the plumbing code needs to be reconsidered. He continued to say that he will bring all the code revisions for the adoption of the new codes to the Board for their review and recommendations. Mr. Moore asked for clarification from the Board, if they wanted to incorporate this subject in the revisions. The Board agreed that they would like more information about CPVC and Flow Guard Gold and the Board will discuss it at that time. CRA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Paul Swoboda made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Tom Wilson seconded the motion which carried unopposed (5-0). APPROVED: K r an Dan Sears ATTEST: Oda/L12 ecretary, Susan Mac onald CBA Minutes August 17, 1994 Page 8