Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2001 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of AdjustmentsCaron Peters - March 26 01, Bd Mt9 „Minutes.doc Pae "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 26 March 2001 6:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears, Vice Chairman George McLean, Board Members: Robert Mooney, Frank Cox, Glenn Thomas, Larry Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: Member: Kevin Kuddes, Alternate Shannon Schunicht, Alternate Mark Clayton STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Lance Simms, Senior Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik, Fire Marshal Jon Mies, Plans Examiner Carl Warren, Staff Assistant Marla E. Brewer AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order Chairman, Dan Sears, called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider request for absence Robert Mooney motioned to accept the absence request. Glenn Thomas seconded the motion, and the Board concurred, (6 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors for items not on agenda. No visitors were present at this time. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approve minutes from Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals Meeting on Monday, September 25, 2000 George McLean motioned to approve the minutes. Robert Mooney seconded the motion; and the Board concurred, (6 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing for the consideration of Variance 01 -0533 to request modification to Amendments 3 & 5b, Section 1, Chapter 6, College Station Code of Ordinances. The applicant is Wallace Phillips. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the board on the request. Jon Mies took the floor. He explained to the board that Mr. Wallace wants to build a metal building with out available water for fire protection or access for fire department vehicles. He referenced to the map in the members packets. He explained that the structure would be located off of Greens Prairie Rd. in the Castlegate subdivision. He continued that the applicant plans on I Caron Peters March 26 01 Bd Mtg Minutes.doc Pa e 2 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes storing earth - moving equipment in the structure. He told them the problem with having the applicant build the road and lay the water lines is because Hwy 40 is proposed to go though it and they felt it would be a hard ship on the applicant to construct all of the waterlines and roads to a structure that is so far off the pavement and because the applicant wants to keep it out of the future development. He continued that Mr. Wallace understands that if the variance is approved and there is a fire in the structure, it is at his risk and depending on the weather, with no water or roads the City would not be able to assist. He said the building would not have any offices facilities and staff recommends the approval of the variance. Mr. Mooney asked if there were going to be any structures close by that would be affected? Jon Mies deferred the question to Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips said in the future there could be some single - family structures 100 yards away. Mr. Mooney asked about grass conditions. Jon Mies answered that their probably would be some grass just like anywhere else. Robert Mooney said we have had some pretty bad grass fires during drought times. Jon Mies said there is a creek that separates the single - family dwellings from the proposed structure. He said that usually if you have a creek that separates them, it is not a problem because in the state of Texas when you have a grass fire, you chase the fire to the creek bed it then goes into the oaks and then it goes out. Dan Sears opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request. Wallace Phillips took the floor. He explained that he was the developer of the Castlegate communities. He stated that he would like to speak in favor of the variance. He said the reason they put the structure in this location is because it will be behind an Oakmont that will stay so in the future where we will put the single family homes you will not be able to see it. He continued by saying that he understood that there will not be any type of fire protection and that this is not a problem. Dan Sears then asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. No one present chose to speak. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Glenn Thomas motioned to grant the variance. Frank Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (6 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning the adoption of the 2000 International Building Code, with modifications to Appendix 1, Chapter 3, College Station Code of Ordinances, following a presentation from Lance Simms, Building Official. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the board on the request. Lance Simms, Building Official, took the floor and told the board that he is trying to review one International Code per meeting so that this board could review the changes and get their input prior to taking them to City Council for adoption. He said his plan is to take the 2000 International codes as a group /family to the council. He continued that he was going to go though the building code changes. He added that in Chapter 9 he would let Jon Mies take the floor because it deals with fire protection issues, and then he will continue after that. Lance said there are 34 chapters in Caron Peters - March 26,01 Bd Mtg Minutes.doc Page 3 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes The international building code and that he had tried to compress it so that it could be reviewed tonight. Lance said that nationally, code development is regional in nature. He said from Florida to parts of Texas, the SBCCI publishes the Standard Code and that we are currently operating under the 1994 edition. He added, that the Mid -West & West operates under the Uniform Building code published by ICBO. Lance said the Northeast and some Southern states operate under the National Building Code, which is published by BOCA. He said a few years ago (1994) these 3 bodies agreed to establish an international code council to come up with one set of codes, nationwide, with the exception of the NEC and a few other codes. Lance continued by saying that this made since to everyone because when contractors work in several cities they will be able to work with the same code. Lance said in May of 2000 the family of International codes was published for the first time. He added that after 1999 the old codes would no longer be maintained. Lance said he thinks it is time to adopt the new (International) codes. Lance said he wants to review the major changes and told the Board that they have a copy of the review in their packets. Lance then reviewed the General Comments section of the handout. He said the main reasons why we should accept the new code are: 1. The Standard Building Code will not be maintained by SBCCI after 1999, 2. This move will demonstrate that the City of College Station wishes to operate under the latest building code and the 2000 IBC is the only choice at this time. He added that the IBC views automatic sprinkler systems in a favorable manner so there are lots of trade -offs if sprinkler systems are installed. Lance told the Board that, as a side note, there is a move at the state level to adopt the International Residential Code, which is a different code that will be considered latter. He added that if the International Residential Code is adopted by the state then that will be even more incentive to adopt the International codes on the local level. Lance said he wants to make sure the board is well informed so if they have any questions though the review please stop him and ask. Dan Sears said he would like all the members to have a codebook of which ever code is adopted. Lance said he would take care of that. Lance started the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) review process with Chapter 1, "Administration ". He said in our current code (1994 Standard Building Code), single - family dwellings could be constructed under the Standard Building Code or the CABO 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Code. The 2000 IBC states that 1 and 2 family dwellings are exempt from it but must comply with the 2000 International Residential Code (IRC). He said he felt this was good because that way there is no confusion with which code to use for one and two family dwellings. Lance said that the new code also gives a more detailed list of items exempt from permitting. He added that this is good because it will take away more of the gray areas. Lance then said that the new code revised the requirement outlining when construction documents must be prepared by a registered design professional. Lance said he is recommending that we amend this code section to keep the current code requirement. He added that our current code specifically states that single - family dwellings are excluded from this requirement. Lance moved to Chapter 2, "Definitions ". He said there are many new definitions and there are many definitions that have changed in the IBC. He continued by saying that, for example, the definition of a "firewall" in the current code is a 4 -hour rated wall. He said in the IBC, a firewall could be could be a two, three, or four hour rated wall depending upon the occupancy. Lance said that he and Jon would like to keep a "firewall' defined as a 4 -hour rated wall. He added that he would like to propose an amendment that addresses this issue, but that he would go over that later in the meeting. Lance then reviewed Chapter 3, "Use and Occupancy Classification ". He told the board that the IBC has five assembly subgroups (A -1, A -2, A -3, A-4 and A -5), where the current code only has 2 3 Caron Peters - March 26 i3d Mtcg Minutes.doc Page 4 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes (large and small assembly, based on the occupant load). He said he felt this is good because it gives a more detail list. Lance said that the IBC also has four institutional groups where the current code only has two. He went onto tell the board that the IBC has four sub - classifications for residential occupancies where as the current code only has three. Lance said that the trend here is the IBC contains more sub - classifications than the Standard Building Code and he felt that this was a good change. Lance said that a new occupancy classification has been added to the IBC that is not addressed in the current code. He said the new classification is Group U, utility & miscellaneous. He said this group would include small storage buildings, fences, pools, etc. Lance said that the new code requires a room or space used for assembly for more than 50 people to be classified as a Group A, assembly. He said the current code allows assembly occupancies with an occupant load of less than 100 people to be classified as Group B, business. He gave the example of a fast food restaurant with an occupant load of 90 people. Under the current code, this would be classified as a business occupancy, however under the IBC it would be classified as an assembly occupancy. He added that this means that under the IBC it would be required to have illuminated exit lights, emergency lighting, etc., the kinds of requirements you would expect with a larger group of people. Lance then moved to Chapter 4, "Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy." Lance said the IBC requires a main exit for assembly uses only if the occupant load exceeds 300 and provides for an exception that permits exits to be distributed around the building perimeter. He added that the current code requires a main entrance /exit for all assembly uses with no exceptions. Lance said the IBC allows a little more flexibility in that it will let you spread the exits around in an assembly occupancy rather than having one main exit in certain conditions. Lance continued by saying that the IBC does not limit the stages and platform requirements to assembly only. He said that these requirements apply to any occupancy that contains a stage or platform. Lance explained that there is usually a separation requirement between a stage /theater and the crowd. He said what the IBC is saying is that the separation not only applies to the assembly, but that it would apply to any use that incorporates a stage or platform. Lance said the IBC permits the tenant separation wall in covered malls to terminate at the underside of the ceiling. He added that the SBC requires tenant separation walls in covered malls to extend to the roof or floor deck above. He gave the example of the Post Oak Mall. He said that every tenant has a rated wall that goes all the way to the roof deck, usually a one -hour rated wall. Lance said under the IBC that the tenant separation wall would not have to go all the way to the roof deck and this is one of the reasons why when a firewall is required, we want it to have a 4 -hour rating. Robert Mooney questioned the safety of this because he had read about a crook that had gotten in to a mall and was moving from one business to another thorough the ceiling. Jon Mies took the floor and explained that in that case the crook was actually cutting through the tenant separation wall. Jon added that this requirement isn't for security but for the prevention of fire and smoke. The board discussed this issue for a few moments. Lance continued the review of the IBC by saying that it also addresses security grills and doors specifically for covered malls. He said that it specifies when you have more then ten people in the store that the doors should be open. Lance began covering Chapter five, "General Building Limitations ". He said the IBC contains a requirement for premise identification for all new buildings. He said he recommends we substitute our current local amendment for this section. He told the board that the IBC does not require Group E buildings, unlimited in area, to be divided into 30,000 sq. ft. areas by one hour smoke barriers. He added, however, it does require the each classroom have two means of egress with one of the means of egress being a direct exit to the Caron Peters March 26 01 Bd Mtg Mmutes.doc Pale 5?, "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes outside as a condition of unlimited area. The staff and Board discussed this issue for a few minutes. Lance said that the SBC allows an area increase of 33.3% for places of worship, but the IBC does not have an equivalent provision. Larry Patton asked 33% to what? Lance explained that there is a table in chapter five that restricts the height and area of a building based on the use and construction type the building. He said that the 33% increase was in addition to the value from that table. He added that a 200% or 300% increase is allowed under the IBC, if the building is sprinklered however, the IBC does not include the 33% increase simply because the building is used as a place of worship. Lance said that the IBC allows a two -story building of unlimited area for Groups B, F, M or S when meeting certain conditions. He said our current code only allows for a single story, unlimited area building when complying with similar conditions. He referenced an old variance that had gone before the board as an example of this difference. Lance then said the SBC regulates buildings on the same lot as separate buildings where as the IBC permits two or more buildings on the same lot to be considered portions of one building provided the aggregate area of all buildings are within the limitations of Table 503. Lance said he likes this provision. He gave the example that if you can, by code, have a 10,000 sq. ft. building area you can have five 2000 sq. ft. buildings immediately adjacent to each other as long you don't exceed the total allowable area. He said this is section is more workable than the current code provision that addresses the same issue. Lance then reviewed Chapter six, "Construction Types ". He said that basically, the IBC has five different designations for building construction types where the SBC has six. Lance moved to Chapter seven, "Fire Resistant Rated Construction ". He said the SBC requires that separate tenants in a single occupancy building be separated by one hour rated construction where the IBC only requires a rated tenant separation for guestrooms of Group R -1 occupancies (hotels /motels). Lance said the SBC definition of a "firewall" requires a four -hour rating but the IBC has a table that allows a two, three, or four hour rated firewall depending upon the occupancy. He told the board that he had mentioned this earlier, and that he was proposing that they amend this code section to keep the four -hour fire rating. Lance said the draft stopping provisions for combustible construction in the IBC are similar to the draft stopping provisions in the SBC with the exception that the IBC allows the elimination of draft stopping provided a sprinkler system is installed. Lance then moved on to Chapter eight, "Interior Finishes ". He said that the IBC contains no significant differences when compared to the SBC. Lance said Chapter nine deals with Fire Protection Systems. He said the scope of the IBC has been expanded beyond automatic sprinkler systems, standpipes, and fire alarms to include alternative fire extinguishing systems, portable fire extinguishers, emergency alarm systems, smoke control systems and smoke and heat vents. He told the board that a large part of Chapter nine covers automatic sprinkler systems and turned the floor over to Jon Mies, Fire Marshal. Jon Mies took the floor. Jon said that he really likes the provisions in chapter nine and all of the new codes. He said he felt like they took all of the codes and took most of the bad things out and kept the good things in. He said the sprinkler installation is really duplicated from the building code to the fire code in this new code, and it isn't in the current code. He added that the International Fire Code committee maintains this section of the IBC. Jon said the sprinkler systems in the new code is a little more restrictive then what our current amendments are. He said the new code breaks it down by specific occupancy classification and not just square footage. He said that he 5 Caron Peters - March 26 01 Bd Mt Minutes.doc Page 6 , "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes and Lance really liked this about the new code. Jon said he and Lance have already discussed the amendments that they would like to have for the new code and referenced the board members to the hand out "Appendix 1 "(Proposed amendments). Jon said he and Lance are trying to keep the amendments to a minimum so when someone comes in from outside our city or state it will be the same. Jon reviewed the code groups as they pertain to sprinkler systems with the Board. He told them that Group E (educational) is the first group that they are recommending be amended. He recommended changing this to 12,000 sq. ft. maximum instead of the 20,000 sq. ft. limits in the IBC. Jon continued by recommending that Group M (Mercantile) be changed from 24,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. and from three stories to two stories, which is in line with our current amendment. He continued by recommending that they delete the exceptions to Group R1 (Hotel /Motel). Jon said he thinks everyone has this amendment because everyone wants their hotels and motels to have sprinkler systems. He continued that the exceptions allow them not to sprinkler if the exits discharge directly to the outside, but he recommends sprinkler systems in all cases. Dan Sears asked Jon if he could clarify if what he is proposing is being more restrictive or less restrictive that our current code. Jon said when if we are taking it from the 15,000 sq. ft. to the 12,000 sq. ft., we are being more restrictive. He said when we go from 7,500 sq. ft. for assembly occupancies up to 12,000 sq. ft., we are being less restrictive. Jon asked the Board if they had any more questions. He summarized by telling the Board that in most cases, our current code allows construction of up to 15,000 sq. ft. and two stories without a sprinkler system. Under the IBC with the proposed amendments, we would allow construction up to 12,000 sq. ft. and two stories without a sprinkler system. He said we are trying to stay in line with everyone else is in the nation. Lance took the floor and continued reviewing Chapter nine. He said the requirement for a fire alarm in assembly is based on the occupant load of the building. He said under the current code if you have more then a 1,000 people in the assembly you had to have a fire alarm system, however, in the IBC the maximum occupant load without an alarm is reduced to 300 people. He said this is a significant difference. Lance told the board that the IBC requires smoke detectors in each sleeping room and outside of each sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms in residential occupancies (R -1, R -2, R -3, R-4, and 1 -1). He said the current code only requires smoke detectors outside the sleeping rooms. He added that this would increase the amount of smoke detectors required. He suggested that the reason for this requirement is that some people may sleep with the bedroom door shut in which case they may not be able to hear the smoke detector that is located in the hall. Dan Sears said he didn't think there would be many complaints about the new requirement because it's for safety. Lance reviewed Chapter ten, "Means of Egress ". He said the requirements and procedures for calculating the total width of the means of egress components (doors, ramps, stairs, corridors) are similar in both codes, however, the new code provides for an increase for buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system where the current code does not. He said for example, under the IBC, a 36" exit door is good for 170 persons however, if an automatic sprinkler system is provided in the building, the same 36" door is good for 226 persons. He added under the current code a 36" exit door is good for 170 persons without exceptions. Lance said when two exits are required from a space or building, both codes require those exits to be placed a distance apart of at least one half of the overall diagonal of the space or building to be served. He referenced a diagram on the overhead to give an example. He said in the current code there are no exceptions, however, in the IBC the distance can be reduced to one third of the overall diagonal if the building is provided with an automatic sprinkler system. Lance said the IBC permits a single exit for assembly, educational, factory and hazardous occupancies that meet certain conditions and they are very restrictive. He continued by stating that 6 Caron Peters - March 26 01 „Bd Mtg,Mmutes.doc Pa e 7 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes the SBC does not permit a single exit for these occupancy groups. Lance said the emergency lighting provisions in the IBC are significantly different then the current code. He said that in short, the new code is more restrictive. Dan Sears asked at what point would the question be asked about how much will this cost? Lance said he felt that could be asked tonight and added that he needed their input because they were more in touch with cost then he is. Lance asked if you could put a dollar value on life? Dan Sears said he didn't think you could but that you could put a value on how many extra exits, lights, systems we would have to come up with. Lance said that it is a valid point. Dan Sears said that when someone asks me "When you approved it did you have any idea how much it would cost ", right now, I would have to say no. Lance said he feels that this is one of the reasons why Council wanted these codes to come before the construction Board before they get it, because the Board is directly involved in construction activities. Lance said Chapters 11 & 12 contain no major changes. Lance moved on to Chapter 13, "Energy Efficiency ". Lance said the IBC adopts the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by reference. He said in other words we don't have to have a separate ordinance that specifically adopts an energy code, if we leave it as is it will be adopted by reference. Lance continued by saying that we have a separate energy department and he said that the new energy code has been forwarded to them for review. Lance said that he spoke with Art Roach (Energy Auditor) and that he verbally said he felt it was a good code, but that we will need to get that in writing at some point and present the IECC to the Board for review. Lance told Dan Sears that we have some guest from TAMU that would like to speak on this issue. Lance asked Dan if he wanted them to speak now or after the presentation. Lance said he would finish his presentation. Robert Mooney asked Lance if he could inquire if Art would include the testing of ducts for leakage in his presentation? Lance said yes and that Art had just finished a pilot program where they studied existing houses for duct leakage and he thought they had made some monies available for that. Dan Sears opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request. Bahman Yazdani took the floor and introduced himself. He stated that he was a registered professional engineer. He said he works with Energy System Laboratory of Texas A & M University. He introduced the gentlemen that were with him. He thanked the staff for the great job they were doing and said he was glad they were bringing the energy subject up. He said Austin and El Paso recently adopted this code. He explained that this code should reduce the cost for the enforcement of it and also for the builders and developers. He said there is state legislation that has been introduced as a statewide amendment on the energy side of this. He said he thought it was House Bill 3546. He said he recommends the passage of this Energy code. He said he highly recommends we keep the amendments to minimum. He said that he felt Mr. Sears had brought up a key point about justifying the cost vs. why change codes. He reminded the board that these codes are the minimum requirements. Mr. Yazdani told the board that the state is preparing a State Implementation Plan where they are telling EPA how we are going to be with -in the guidelines they have introduced because Texas is one of the worst air pollution states. He said he recommends we adopt the whole family of International Codes including the new energy code. He said he would be happy to help in any way that he could. Larry Patton asked what Energy code A &M uses now? Mr. Yazdani said A &M is a state agency and it has to abide by the state energy code. Dr. John Bryant took the floor and introduced himself. He said he is on the faculty of the Construction Science Department at TAMU. He referenced Mr. Mooney's question on duct leakage and told the board that they had also completed a study on this issue. He said this study was on "Good Cents" homes and that 100% had leakage on the return side. He gave additional information on the study. He then said that he highly recommends we adopt the IECC and the International 7 Caron Peters March 26 01 Bd Mt9,,Minutes.doc Page 8 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes Building Codes. He said on the energy side he had gone to one of the latest meetings they had with the North Central Council of Governments. He said the homebuilders pretty much fought the new code, although now he has a letter that says they support it. He continued by saying that the homebuilders saw anything that would increases the cost of a home as a potential sale that they might loose. He said they had presented the following to their council; if a house cost $1000 more, then that would prevent 20,000 people from buying a house. He said he could not understand where a $1000 dollars would prevent someone from buying a house, if it were a $1000 more a month then he could understand it, but a $1000.00 more for the whole house. He added that is like an extra $5 or $8 dollars a month. He asked the board to keep these numbers in mind incase anyone brings them up. He said that because the house is more energy efficient it is more cost efficient. He said that another thing that the builders didn't like was the 15% glass limit of the exterior wall. He said the homebuilders said the customer like 25 %. He said this small change makes a huge difference in energy use. He said it goes from a %z ton of cooling to two tons of cooling required. He said the whole reason they are pushing this in Houston and Dallas is air quality. He continued that it not only helps save energy but it also saves emissions back at the power plants that generate our electricity. He said that the EPA really wants this to happen. Dr. Bryant concluded by recommending we adopt the new international codes. Lanced took the floor and continued reviewing with Chapters 14 & 15. He stated that there were no significant changes in these two chapters. Lance moved to Chapter 16, "Structural Design ". He said one of the biggest changes is the IBC is the requirement that certain data be listed on the construction documents. He stated that the design criteria such as floor live load, roof live load, snow load, wind load, seismic zone, and so forth will have to be noted on the construction documents. Lance said he felt this would make the plans examiner happy because he won't have to guess what the design data is based upon. Lance said that Chapter 17 covers structural tests and special inspections. He said the IBC contains an expanded section with more specific requirements for special inspections under certain conditions. He gave several examples: off -site fabricators, steel construction, concrete construction, pier foundations, and sprayed on fire protection materials. He said there are private inspectors who specialize in these areas and the code states that the builder is required to have special inspections and supply the test reports if necessary. Lance said Chapter 18, "Soils and Foundations" contains no major changes. Lance said Chapter 19 covers concrete. He recommended amending Section 1911-"Minimum Slab Provisions," by including the minimum foundation requirements that the city developed a couple of years ago. Lance said Chapters 20, 21, and 22 had no significant differences. Lance moved to Chapter 23, "Wood ". He said one difference in this chapter had been mentioned previously: draft stopping requirements and the trade offs you get with the sprinkler system under the IBC. Lance said Chapters 24, 25, and 26 contained no significant differences between the two codes. Lance then said Chapter 27 of the IBC references the ICC Electrical Code ( ICCEC). He said the ICCEC is really an administrative chapter that adopts the National Electrical Code to cover any electrical provisions. Lance recommended we change this to reference the National Electrical Code, 1999 Edition (NEC) that we have already adopted. Larry Patton said the two codes (building and electrical) don't match in language and terminology. He said the problem with the NEC as it applies to the building code is the definitions are not the same. Larry continued by saying that he could see the possibility for a considerable amount of confusion dealing with the assembly occupancies because the NEC is very specific about what is required in an assembly occupancy based on 8 Caron Peters - March 26 01 Bd Mtg,Minuti s.doc Page 9 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes people load and the building code brakes assemblies up into different categories that do not match the NEC. He said that what the city may classify as an A 1 or what ever then you have to go back and apply the NEC to that type of occupancy. Lance and Mr. Patton discussed this topic for a while longer. Lance and Mr. Patton agreed that definitions would need to be worked out & interpreted. Lance said that he would recommend any changes to the NEC be addressed at the next cycle, which will be available in 2002. Lance then moved to Chapter 28, "Mechanical Systems ". He said this chapter basically adopts the International Mechanical Code and the International Fuel Gas Code by reference. Lance said Chapter 29, "Plumbing Systems ", adopts the International Plumbing Code by reference. He said that there is a significant difference in the minimum plumbing facilities (minimum number of fixtures) required by the two codes. He said that, in general, the new code is more reasonable and allows an equal distribution of the fixtures between the sexes. He said for example, under our current code, a 2000 square foot office building requires one water closet and one lavatory for the men's restroom. He added, however, the ladies restroom requires two water closets and two lavatories. He continued that under the IBC, both restrooms require one water closet and one lavatory regardless of sex. Lance said that this should help the smaller businesses that come in and don't have the space to give up for two water closets and lavatories. Lance said that Chapters 30, 31, 32 and 33 contain no major changes. Lance said Chapter 34 covers Existing Structures. He said that the new code requires a structure that is moved into the City to comply with the code provisions for new construction. He said he thinks this is a good thing. Lance said another part of this chapter is that the IBC includes a "compliance alternative" section that provides an alternative for repair, alteration, addition or change of use in an existing building without requiring the building to meet all the requirements for new construction. He said this process involves determining points for fire safety, means of egress, and general safety to arrive at an overall building score. He added, if the overall building score meets the code specified minimum, then the building is in compliance with this section. He said the bottom line is there is possibly a way around having to have everything come up to the new standard. He added that he felt like this would not compromise the overall safety of the building. Glenn Thomas asked a question in reference to Chapter 29, Plumbing. He asked if cross - linked polyethylene was going to be allowed for residential construction under the slab and if that had been addressed in a local amendment? Lance said yes, a few meetings back we discussed that issue and the board was interested in allowing that. Dan Sears asked if Lance had received any feedback from architects or engineers concerning the new code. Lance said the comments he gets are mainly from out of town architects and the feedback has been positive. The Board and Lance continued discussion the positive points and the cost of adopting the code. Lance told the Board that he heard that Texas Association Builders (TAB) has sponsored a Bill to have the International Residential Code (IRC) adopted statewide. He said the local Home Builders Association (HBA) has expressed an interest in the IRC. Lance said he is considering the best way to communicate the changes to the residential code to the HBA. Dan Sears said he thought it would really help to have the backing of the HBA and groups like that. Robert Mooney said he thought adopting the codes will help because some of the out of town contractors low ball the cost because they work to a different standard and this will put everyone on the same field. George McLean said he likes the structural design requirements in chapter 16 because he feels it will help safety when building schools. Larry Patton asked for the previous minutes from the meetings on Caron Peters March 26 01 Bd Mtg Minutes doc Page 10 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes code review so he could be familiar with what has been reviewed. Lance said we would get those to him. The board and staff reviewed what codes had been reviewed to date and then Dan Sears called for a 10- minute recess. After the recess, Lance continued with a review of the Appendix 1 (proposed amendments). He said that there is not any provision in the code that addresses contractor registration with the city. He said Section 105 of the proposed amendment covers this. Lance added that he would like the Board's opinion on the current liability insurance requirement, which is $300,000. He said our requirements are probably out dated because many of the insurance policies we see come though are for $1,000,000. He asked the board if they felt we should raise the minimum coverage or leave it the same. Gorge McLean said he thought we should not raise it. Dan Sears said he agreed that he would not want to raise it without talking to insurance companies and finding out which way we should go. The board discussed it further. Gorge McLean said he felt raising it would eliminate smaller contractors from bidding. Dan Sears agreed and said we needed to look into it deeper. Lance suggested that we leave it as is. The Board concurred. Lanced moved to Section 105.2 which covers work that is exempt from permits. Lance said that as we talked about this earlier, the new code has a detailed list for this section. He added that number exception number one allows for structures less then 120 sq. ft. not to be permitted. He said as a reminder this section is not talking about 1 & 2 family dwellings. He said that he is recommending that we delete this exception so that a permit would be required to be obtained for commercial projects less then 120 sq. ft. Lance said Section 106.1 covers requirements for plans and when they must be prepared by a design professional. He said he would like to amend this code section to keep our current requirements. Lance said Section 112 deals with the Board of Appeals and noted that it is set up differently in the IBC. Lance said he needed to set up a meeting with legal because he wants to keep the current provisions for the construction Board. He said after talking to legal he would like to bring the issue back to the board for their review. Lance confirmed that all of the items they were being reviewed as part of the meeting are subject to the legal department's approval. Lance moved on to Section 115.1, He said he wanted to amend this section by adding that unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building official deems necessary and as provided for in Section (F), Chapter 3, of the College Station Code of Ordinances. He said that this would add a step in the process so that he would not be the only one deciding this. Roxanne Nemcik said that there was some case law that may affect this section too. Lance said that it sounds like what Roxanne is saying is that this case law could add another step in the process. Glenn Thomas summarized what he understood was being said and stated that he felt additional steps would be a good thing. Glenn said that it might help the Board avoid overstepping their boundaries. Several of the board members agreed. Lance moved to Section 303.1, IBC. He recommended amending the definition of Group A -3, assembly to include Tutorial services. Lance stated that there has been a problem in the past with over crowding of tutorial services and this would help control that situation. Lance recommended amending section 501.2, IBC "Premises Identification ". He said that he and Jon would like to substitute our current addressing requirement for the section in the IBC. Lance recommended that Section 702.1, IBC be amended to change the definition of a firewall. He recommended replacing the definition of firewall in the IBC with the definition of a firewall in the SBC. This change would limit a firewall to four hour rated construction. Lance recommended amending Section 803.4, IBC to require a class A rating in all assembly occupancies. This amendment will make the IBC consistent with our current code requirement Lance reviewed Section 903.3.7, and recommended replacing "building official' with "fire official." 10 Caron Peters -March 26 01 Bd Mtq Minutes.doc Pa a 11 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes Lance recommended amending Section 1911, by adding, "All foundations shall comply with Minimum Foundation Standard as shown in Figure 1." He said that this would make our minimum foundation requirement a part of the code. Lance recommended amending Section 2701.1, IBC, by replacing the reference to the "ICC EC- 2000" with the "NEC, 1999 Edition" as adopted and amended by the City of College Station. Lance also pointed out that Section 3409.2, IBC; insert effective date of the IBC adoption. (When adopted) Lance then moved on to Appendix D. He said that an appendix must specifically be mentioned in the adopting ordinance to be adopted. He said that he would like to adopt Appendix D, "Fire Districts" to keep the IBC consistent with our current code. After Lance concluded the review of the 2000 IBC, Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of the item. No one chose to speak. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Dan Sears asked if anyone was ready to make a motion? The Board discussed how the motion should be made. Roxanne Nemcik took the floor. Roxanne gave them their options. Roxanne and the Board discussed what kind of things legal would review for. Gorge McLean said he wanted a moment to discuss the motion. The Board discussed the motion Further. Larry Patton requested something from staff on how this new code relates to the NEC. Lance took the floor and gave an example of how it would relate to nonmetallic - sheathed cable (AKA romex). Larry said he understood, but a more detail look could help him evaluate cost. The board discussed this issue further. Glenn Thomas said that we are very fortunate to have people like Lance and Jon, which have tackled the IBC. He said he has a great deal of confidence in the fact that he believed they have done their homework, and that he thinks that our city is poised for a more rapid rate of growth than we have ever experienced in the past. Glenn continued by saying that we are currently operating with a code that is 6 or 7 years out of date and we have got to make a decision to move forward. He said the 1994 Standard Building Code is going away, we need to move to something, and it sounds like this has been thought out by people much smarter then he is, and that they all seem to be heading in the same direction. Glenn said with those comments he feels very strongly in favor of adopting the 200 IBC. Larry Patton made a motion to recommend to the city council the adoption of the 2000 International Building Code with amendments as presented by the staff after legal review. Frank Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (6 -0). Dan Sears directed that all members get a copy after legal review. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning the adoption of the 2000 International Fire Code, with modifications to Section 1, Chapter 6, College Station Code of Ordinances, following a presentation from Jon Mies, Fire Marshal. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the board on the request. 11 Caron Peters - March 26 01 Bd _ Minutes.doc Page_ 1? "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes Jon Mies, Fire Marshal, took the floor. Jon said that he did not get the Life Safety Code put on the agenda but he wanted the Board to know that he is planning on bringing before the council the 2000 Life Safety Code without any amendments. Jon Mies referenced the handout "Fire Code Amendments" he had given the board. He said if it's not referenced on the handout, then we are planning on keeping what is in the new code. Jon said the first Section is 101.2.1, "Appendices ". He said he would like to adopt Appendix B — F to the International Fire code (IFC) with minor revisions. He added that he would like to bring them back to the Board before they are taken to the council. Jon said the next Section 108.1 — 108.3, IFC deals with the Board of Appeals. He said he wants to reference the current Board of Adjustments and Appeals section in our ordinance. Jon then said Section 111, IFC is new, it allows the fire marshal to issue stop work orders, before, it only allowed the building official to issue them. Jon moved to Section 202, IFC "Occupancy Classifications ". He said they have been added to the fire code. He said, as Lance stated, we want to add Tutorial services to Group A -3. Jon said that the Institutional Group has been reworked. He said that adult day care; childcare with children less than 2 % years old with more than five residents is now classified as Group I, so it will have stricter requirements, as it should. Jon referred to Section 307, IFC "Open burning prohibited without permit ". He recommended that we keep the same thing, where you don't burn if you don't have a permit. He said that by doing this, we are following state law. Jon said Section 307.5 — 307.5.1, IFC is added in the new code. He said it prohibits charcoal and LP grills on combustible balconies and within 10 feet of combustible construction with an exception for one and two family dwellings. He said the apartment managers have been asking for this for a couple of years now. He added that he removed exception #2 under section 307.5, IFC because it allows them on balconies with sprinklers installed. Jon moved to Section 501.4, IFC. He recommended adding the following text to this section: "There shall be no combustible, flammable or ignitable materials placed on site, lot or subdivision where waterlines, fire hydrants and /or all weather access roads capable of supporting emergency vehicles with an imposed load of at least 75,000 pounds as required by this code or other adopted codes or ordinances are completed accepted and in service." Dan Sears asked what does "There shall be no combustible, flammable or ignitable materials placed on site, lot or subdivision" mean? He asked if that means we can't stack something up or you can't put anything out there that would burn? Jon responded by stating that our interpretation has always been you are allowed to place form materials and nothing beyond that. Jon continued with Section 503.2.5, IFC "Fire Lanes ". He said he wanted to replace "450 Feet" with "100 feet ". Jon continued the review with section 505, IFC "Premises Identification ". He recommended replacing that section with our current addressing requirements. Jon said Section 508, IFC deals with fire hydrants. He said he wants to replace that section with our current ordinance requirements (max. distance of 300 feet except single family and duplex — max distance of 500 feet, as the hose is laid from the fire apparatus). Jon recommended that Section 806.3, IFC "Minimum flame spread requirements" for Group A be amended to require a class A interior finish rating in all cases. 12 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes Jon said that with respect to Section 900, IFC "Fire Systems", he wanted to recommend the same changes as recommended for the IBC. Jon noted that a voice communication fire alarm system is required if the occupant load is over 1000 people. He said that Lance had already covered the section on smoke detectors. Jon continued by noting that Section 1000, "Means of egress ", has been added to the IFC. Jon then said that under Section 2203.2, IFC, "Emergency Disconnect Switches ", that gas stations are given an extra 25 feet of travel distance when compared to our existing code. Jon said that in Section 2204.1, IFC, if we don't make an amendment to this section it would allow for unattended services station that are open to the public. He continued that he did not support unattended stations that are open to the public. He recommended that we amend it to read "The dispensing of flammable or combustible liquids into the fuel tank of a vehicle or into an approved container shall be under the supervision of a qualified attendant except service stations not open to the public, such station may be used by commercial, industrial governmental or manufacturing establishments for fueling vehicles in connection with their business." He said there might be some resistance to this. The Board and staff discussed what unattended meant and what impact this would have. The Board and staff decided since there were so many 24 -hour gas stations now that the impact should be minimal. Jon said the remainder of the 44 sections would be adopted without revision because the new code is so good. Dan Sears asked is there any radical changes in the remainder of the sections that we should know about? Jon answered no, not that he could think of. Jon said there is a new section on tire rebuilding that wasn't in there before, along with some clarifications. Larry Patton asked what relationship does this code have to NFPA 72 as far as requirements go? Jon said it adopts NFPA 72 as a standard for installing fire alarm systems. Jon continued by saying the IFC references many of the NFPA standards. After Jon concluded his review of the 2000 IFC, Dan Sears opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the item. Bahman Yazdani took the floor. He said he would like to speak in favor of the code since it fits into the family of the International Codes. Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request No one present chose to speak. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to make a motion. Larry Patton made a motion to recommend to City Council, the adoption of the 2000 International Fire Code with the modifications as presented by staff subject to approval by legal. Frank Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (6 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Adjourn Frank Cox motioned to adjourn. Glenn Thomas seconded the motion. 13 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 26, 2001 - Minutes The motion passed unanimously, (6 -0). The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman: Dan Sears ATTEST: Staff Assistant: Marla E. Brewer 14