Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1999 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of Adjustments "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 6:00 P.M. Training Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears,Vice Chairman Steve Abalos Board Members George McLean,Robert Mooney, Frank Cox MEMBERS ABSENT: Board Member Glenn Thomas,Helene Weber Alternate Kevin Kuddes, AIternate Shannon Schuniclit STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Lance Simms, Building Technician Lisa Hankins AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dan Scars AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Hear visitors for items not on agenda There were no visitors AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Approve minutes from Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting on September 27, 1999. George McLean motioned to approve the minutes,Frank Cox seconded the motion, and The Board concurred, (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Consider Variance request 99-007, to request modification Section R-210, 1992 Cabo One&Two Family Dwelling Code. The applicant is Craig H. BIakely. Dan Sears asked for staff to explain the variance request CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" Lance Simms, the Building Official, took the floor to explain the variance request to the board. He said that the applicant was requesting a variance to the minimum opening requirement on an upstairs bedroom window in a single-family home. Lance told the board that the window in question serves as emergency egress for the second floor,however, it does not meet the minimum window opening height requirement outlined in the code. Lance read the staff report to the board,which stated that the applicant was issued a permit to remodel his home at 701 Hereford on October 25, 1996. As part of the remodel, the applicant was going to convert some of the attic space into a bedroom. Lance said that the plan review comments given to the applicant at he lime of permitting stated that the window opening dimensions must comply with the code requirements. Lance showed the board a copy of the plan review comment sheet with the applicants initial's on it indicating the applicant had understood the plan review comments. Lance read the code section that requires a minimum net clear opening height of 24 inches and a minimum net clear width opening of 20 inches for windows that serve as emergency egress openings for sleeping rooms. Lance stated that during a framing inspection the building inspector noted that the window that served the upstairs bedroom did not meet the code requirement for egress. He stated that the window opening width met the code requirement,but the window opening height was short of the code-required 24 inches. Lance stated that an on-site measurement revealed an actual window opening height of 15 '/2 inches. Lance went on to say that many deaths occur in residential buildings because of fires that block off conventional exits while the occupants arc asleep. The code is designed to prevent that occurrence by requiring emergency egress openings in sleeping rooms. He said the opening requirement serves two functions;first, it allows occupants enough room to exit the bedroom,and secondly. it provides for an opening for fire department rescue personnel. Lance said that staff recommendation for this variance request was to deny it because the applicant was made aware of the code requirement when the building permit was issued and,furthermore, emergency egress in specific rooms is a critical life safety requirement and should not be compromised. Lance had some photographs to show the board that the applicant submitted. In these photographs,the applicant displayed the act of climbing in and out of the window in question to prove the window could be used for egress. Lance also had some photographs of the outside of the home to show the board the exact location of the window in question. At this time, Lance entertained questions from the board. Robert Mooney asked Lance to verify the measurement of the window. Lance confirmed that the window clear opening height was 15 %inches. Robert Mooney asked Lance about the design of the window and what was it constructed out of. Lance said the window was approximately four feet in height and made with an aluminum frame. Robert asked if all construction was completed yet. Lance verified that the applicant had not notified the inspection department that the project was complete, therefore, no final inspections have been done. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes Page 2 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" Dan Sears opened the public hearing. The applicant, Craig Blakely, took the floor to speak in favor of the variance request. Mr. Blakely stated that when he purchased the house three years ago, the previous owner had been the only occupant of the home since it's construction. Mr. Blakely stated that when he decided to purchase the house, lending institutions were skeptical of financing the property because the house was in such disrepair. Mr. Blakely said that since purchasing the house, he has been doing the remodeling himself at a pace that his budget can support,and that is why there have been no final inspections done yet. He said that he in fact did get the information on the plan review regarding the window opening requirement. However, in order to achieve that goal, he would have had to break out several rows of brick veneer,and he was trying to avoid that situation for cost reasons. He also told the board that since he was not familiar with all the codes and ordinances that it has been difl`icult to complete the project in an inexpensive and timely manner, Mr. Blaklcy told the board that there was another door with stairs to the first floor and another window that could serve as a means of egress for the bedroom. He further stated that if you take the top clips off the window in question,and remove the upper pane,it would produce another couple of inches to the opening height. He said he had been out the window several times,and didn't see any problem with it. Mr. Blakely said he was not disputing the codes and ordinances,but stated he has spent more money on the rehabilitation of the house than the actual purchase price. Robert Mooney asked Mr. Blakely if he ever planned on selling the house. Mr. Blakely said it is his primary residence,but he doesn't plan on being there forever,and yes, would possibly sell it later. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. The board held discussion. George McLean stated that based on the photographs,he could understand that the applicant could get through the window,however,he could not visualize a firefighter getting through the window wearing all the equipment that firefighters are required to wear. Robert Mooney stated that if a firefighter needed to enter the window,there's no doubt he could. Dan allowed the applicant to make another statement. Mr. Blakely stated that there were two windows,and one of the windows was near a tree that would allow the occupant to exit the window and climb down the tree to safety. The board held further discussion. George McLean asked about the window where the tree is located, he contemplated putting a small child out the window where they could climb down the tree to safety. Robert Mooney asked if the code stated anything about occupants being dropped out the window to safety. Dan Sears said he believed the code only referred to occupants being able to get out. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes Page 3 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" Dan Sears asked Lance to reiterate the window measurement. Lance stated the clear window opening height was 15 '/2 inches,and the code states it should be a minimum of 24 inches. Dan Sears asked for a motion. Steve Abalos made a motion to deny the variance based on life-safety issues. George Mclean seconded the motion. Motion failed for lack of four affirmative votes,(3-2). Dan Scars opened the floor to further discussion. Robert Mooney said that he could understand the applicant being able to exit the window comfortably because of his shin physique. However,if a potential future owner(s)were of larger proportions,there could be difficulty exiting the window safely. The board held further discussion. Dan Sears asked if the board was ready for a motion. Steve Abalos made a motion to deny the variance because of life safety issues. George Mclean seconded the motion. Motion passed to deny the variance request, (4-1), AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consider variance extension for Variance 98-003, to request modification to Section 1101..1.2., 1994 Standard Building Code and Section 407.2.2, 1994 Standard Plumbing Code. The applicant is First Federal Savings Bank. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the board on the request. Lance stated that in March 1998, the board granted a variance to First Federal Savings bank to occupy two portable buildings used for temporary offices. The buildings were required by the building code to have handicap accessibility and by the plumbing code to have a public bathroom. Because these buildings were to be occupied by employees only,the board granted the variance with a time limit of eighteen(18) months. This time period was granted to allow the applicant time to add onto the existing bank building. The proposed addition would house the employees currently working in the portable office buildings, making their use unnecessary. However,design delays on the new addition caused the work to be postponed and the applicant is requesting another time extension to finish construction of the new addition. Staff Recommendation is to grant the variance with the condition that a time limitation is set for the applicant to complete the new building addition. Dan Sears opened the public hearing. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes Page 4 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" The applicant,Rick Ravey,took the floor to speak in favor of granting the variance request. Mr. Ravey stated that the plans for the new facility were ninety percent complete,and they were in due process of site plan review. He said that they hoped to sign a contract for the project in March 2000. Sian Stephens took the floor to speak in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Stephens first thanked the board for the first variance approval,and apologized for the delay in the construction process, He said several obstacles have delayed this project for too long and he was confident they could expedite the project in a timely manner. He said that he hoped a contract could be signed earlier than March 2000, however,that date was not unreasonable. Mr. Stephens said that construction would probably take six months and asked that the board give them another time extension to complete this project. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. The board held discussion concerning the first extension. Robert Mooney stated that the board was very lenient on the first variance request, therefore, he did not want the applicant to be excused in continually using portable buildings that do not meet code requirements. He asked the applicant what they intended to do with the buildings when they were done with them. Dan allowed the applicant to make a statement. Mr. Stephens said the buildings would be sold. Mr. Stephens also said that since the last variance meeting, there had been restroom facilities installed in the main building next door,and they were handicapped accessible. The board held brief discussion. Dan Sears asked if the board was ready for a motion. Frank Cox made a motion to grant the variance with an additional time extension of fifteen(15)months to complete the new facility. Steve Abalos seconded the motion. The board agreed unanimously,(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Adjourn George Mclean motioned to adjourn Frank Cox seconded the motion,board agreed unanimously, (5-0), CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes Page 5 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" APPROVED: Chairman: Dan Sears A 1'1'EST: t � d-4=" 1/Ca Wetrib`.44. Building T hnician: Lisa Hankins CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS December 6, 1999 Minutes Page 6