Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/1999 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of Adjustments "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS June 7, 1999 6:00 P.M, Training Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears,Board Members George McLean, Glenn Thomas,Robert Mooney,Helene Weber,Bill Lewis, Alternate Steve Abalos and Alternate Kevin Kuddes MEMBERS ABSENT: No members absent STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Lance Simms, Fire Prevention Lieutenant Raymond Olson,Building Technician Lisa Hankins, AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call meeting to order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dan Sears 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 April 26, 1999. Steve Abalos motioned to approve the minutes,Robert Mooney seconded the motion,and The Board concurred,(7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Consider Variance request 99-003, to request modification to Table 500, 1994 Standard Building Code,Amendment No, 14, 1994 Standard Building Code. Dan Sears asked for staff to explain the variance request Lance Simms,Building Official,took the floor to explain the variance request to the board members. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 7, 1999 Minutes .tailliECT TO APPROVAL" Lame mil the applienot, Sly1sa t Builders,applied for a la ilding permit to construct a new single family • 1,11. The plans is aced the house had a game room on the third level. Lance said that during the plan review process,the applicant was notified of Amendment No. 14,and Table 500 of the 1994 Standard Building Code which states that any structure over two stories would require a sprinkle system. Lance said that he agreed to give the applicant a conditional building permit stating that the applicant be granted a variance, sprinkle the house in compliance with the NFPA standards,or eliminate the game room on the third level of the house. Lance discussed Amendment No. 14 and Table 500 as it pertained to this situation.He explained to the board members how these two requirements worked together and why they were so important in the plan review process. At this time,Lance introduced Raymond Olson, Fire Prevention Lieutenant for the City of College Station. He said that Raymond Olson would discuss the fire sprinkler side of the variance request. Dan Sears asked Lance what the occupancy would be of the room in question. Lance verified that it would be a gameroom. Glenn Thomas asked Lance about the ingress and egress of the third story. Lance pointed out a third story window on the plans. Robert Mooney asked where the window went,if it dropped off to the ground or if it had a roof below. Lance verified that there was a roof below. Dan Sears opened the public hearing. Mr. French,President of Stylecraft Builders,took the floor to speak in favor of granting a variance. He explained to the board members that in all the years he had been building,he was not aware of this code requirement. He said that the house was huge and the owners wanted to do something for their children. Randy verified that the area in question was in fact a gameroom,however,there was no bathroom,closets, etc. located on the third level. Randy said that the owners had heard about another house behind them on Augusta Circle that had a similar situation with a third floor room. He said the owners heard that the builder had been granted a variance on that house, so they decided to pursue one in the same manner. At this time,Raymond Olson,Fire Prevention Lieutenant, took the floor to speak in opposition of the variance request. Raymond wanted to first verify the definition of"third story"to the board members. He explained that in a situation as this house,where you have open area such as attic space and decide to build floor and ceiling in that space,you have created another"story". Raymond wanted to also verify that the other house in question that was granted a variance was already under construction heading to a completion stage,when during an inspection, it was discovered in the attic area,some plumbing and electrical fixtures were added. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 7, 1999 Minutes Page 2 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" Raymond stated that the other house could not have feasibly installed a sprinkler system because of the progress of construction at the time the third floor room was discovered.However,the house in question was only in the slab phase and would be fairly easy to incorporate a sprinkler system into the plans. Raymond said that another issue of concern from the applicant was the cost factor of the sprinkler system. Raymond said that the typical home could be sprinkled for approximately two dollars a square foot. He also mentioned that insurance companies would homeowner's discounts for installing a sprinkler system. Raymond said that another concern of the applicant was the fact that most sprinkler heads are unattractive to the decor of the home. Raymond displayed some samples of sprinkler heads that were recommended for single-family dwellings that proved to be effective and attractive to any decor. He also told the board that another concern of the applicant was a situation where the sprinkler system accidentally deploys and ruins home furnishings,carpets,etc. He told the board that there were no false alarms concerning fire sprinklers,the sprinkler heads deploy only in the case of being knocked off or by heat activation. In the event of a flash fire,only the room where it happens would be affected,and you're only talking minimal damage for that room. Raymond said in any case,you could not compare a situation like that when you are talking about life-safety issues. Glenn Thomas confirmed what Raymond Olson had said about the other house on Augusta Circle being under construction before discovering the"third floor"room and said it was good that this applicant had incorporated the"third floor"room on the submitted plans. Dan Sears concurred. Glenn also confirmed with Lance Sinuns on the code requirement for this situation. Lance confirmed that the code states that the entire structure be sprinkled and not just the room in question. Lance told the board that he would like Raymond Olson to briefly discuss the difference between a commercial sprinkler system and residential sprinkler system. Raymond Olson proceeded to explain the differences between the commercial and residential sprinkler systems. He said that commercial buildings require the entire structure to be sprinkled,whereas a residential building doesn't require the attics,garages and bathrooms under fifty square feet to be sprinkled. Raymond said that the installation of the residential sprinkler system is done during the framing stage and usually doesn't present additional problems for construction on the builder. Dan Sears again asked for clarification on"third floor"for this house. Lance clarified to the board the definition of a"third floor". The board directed more general questions at Lance Simms and Raymond Olson about the definition of "third floor"and residential sprinkler system. Dan Sears expressed his opinion on the code clarification. Glenn Thomas discussed the fact that the owners could sheetrock an area in the attic at a later date and use that for a storage area.He felt that,other than the fact there could be kids playing in that area at times, there was not a problem with this from a practical standpoint. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 7, 1999 Minutes Page 3 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" The beard Mid dicamaise awes tbanuelval regard*toe variance request. Robert Mooney expressed his concern about this same type of variance request coning to the board. He also asked the other board members about their duty to enforce the codes in their respective positions. Other board members discussed the safety issues,egress options,and fire department response time. Someone asked the difference between a basement and an attic,and was that considered three stories? Lance clarified the difference between a three-story house and a two-story house with a basement. Discussion proceeded between board members concerning the definition of "third story"and the necessity of having to sprinkle single-family homes,code interpretation,etc. Again,concern was raised as to the board members duties of code interpretation on a repeated variance request. Dan Sears asked the board for a motion. Glenn Thomas made a motion to grant the variance request,motion failed for lack of second. Kevin Kuddes made a motion to deny the variance request,Helene Weber seconded the motion,motion passed to deny variance request,(5-2). AGENDA ITEM NO,4: Consideration of Variance Request 99-004 Dan Sears asked staff to brief the board on the variance. Lance took the floor to discuss the variance request. He said the applicant,Dalton Hodges,for Callaway Development Corp.,applied for a variance regarding the swinuning pool fence requirement. The Code of Ordinances states that"Every outdoor swimming pool shall be so constructed as not to have openings, holes or gaps larger than four inches(4")in any dimension except for doors and gates;and if a fence is erected or maintained,the horizontal spacing between pickets shall not exceed four inches(4"). A dwelling house or accessory building may be used as part of such enclosure." Lance said the swimming pool is located at the Callaway House on 301 George Bush Drive West. He said the building totally surrounds the courtyard area of the project,which includes the swimming pool,and the applicant applied for the variance to use the building as the fence in this case. Lance said that when the applicant submitted plans to construct this building,staff was aware of the swimming pool fence situation,and told the applicant he would issue the permit with the understanding a variance request would have to be made for the swimming pool. Lance referred to the building plans to show the board members the layout of the building as it relates to the swimming pool. He pointed out the areas surrounding the pool deck area,highlighting the veranda and walk-ways areas,because these were the areas that allowed access to the swinuning pool.He also pointed out the fence near the dining area around the swimming pool that created a type of barrier between the swimming pool and dining area. This area allowed no access to the swimming pool because of the landscaping and fence. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Minutes June 7, 1999 Page 4 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL" Lance said the layout was unique and he could understand why the applicant would want to pursue a variance to the fence requirement. However,Lance said one had to consider the students occupying this building would have family members visiting at times and that could mean young children. Lance said the purpose of the this code requirement was to protect the public,especially young children,from the hazards associated with swimming pools. Robert Mooney asked about the number of students who would be occupying this building. Lance said there would be approximately 438 students that would occupy the building. Dan Sears asked Lance if there was any way to walk into the swimming pool area without going through some type of door. Lance said there was no access to the swimming pool without going through a main door or gate. Dan Sears opened the public hearing. Dalton Hodges,representing Callaway Development Corp,took the floor to speak in favor of granting the variance request. Mr.Hodges stated that the entire courtyard was enclosed and to access it you enter through the lobby, which will be manned 24 hours by a security guard. He said all the activity that comes into the building would mostly be common areas that are accessed from within the building. The main access would be the lobby. He said there were no patios or doors exiting from any of the living areas with direct access to the pool. To reinstate what Lance was referring to,Mr.Hodges said that the company had studied student activities and used that information to design the building. He understood the concern of family members having young children visiting the students,however,the building is secured with self-closing doors and gates. Mr.Hodges said with all the safety features they have incorporated into the plans and the unique design of the building,the company felt that installing a fence around the swimming pool would restrict the activity in and around the swimming pool deck area. He said the company is not recognizance to the life-safety issues,and he said the company feels like what they have designed here would protect the public. Kevin Kuddes asked Mr.Hodges about the type of windows and screens that were installed at the living units that faced the courtyard. Mr. Hodges told him they were required standard windows with screens. Glenn Thomas said most of windows would probably be closed anyway due to the air-conditioning system being used all the time. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 7, 1999 Minutes Page 5 "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL,, Robert Mooney made a motion to grant the variance request, George McLean seconded the motion,the board agreed unanimously,(7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Adjourn APPROVED: ci) Chairman: Dan Sears ATTEST: et5izqg B T hmcian: Lisa Hankins CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS June 7, 1999 Minutes Page 6