Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2002 - Regular Minutes - Construction Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 15 April 2002 6:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears, Vice Chairman George McLean, Board Members: Frank Cox, Kevin Kuddes, Larry Patton, Glenn Thomas, Alternate Mark Clayton MEMBERS ABSENT: Board Member: Alternate Neal Nutall STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Lance Simms, Assistant City Attorney Angela Deluca, and Staff Assistant Marla 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. No absence request AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors for items not on agenda. No one choose to speak. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approve minutes from Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting held on Monday, March 11, 2002. Dan Sears asked the Board if anyone was ready to make a motion. George McLean motioned to approve the minutes. Larry Patton seconded the motion; pointing out that the word "question" was misspelled on page 2 of 10, last paragraph second sentence. The motion passed unanimously, (7 -0). 1 of 6 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Aril 15, 2002 - Minutes AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing for the consideration and possible action of Variance 02 -854 to request modification to Chapter 3, Appendix 1 (A) Amendment 9, College Station Code of Ordinances. The applicant is C. Leon Williamson. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the Board on the request. Lance Simms, Building Official, took the floor and referenced his staff report. He said that the applicant is the design professional for a new four -story medical office building (MOB) that is planned for construction between the existing hospital and the existing MOB on Rock Prairie Road. He said that the applicant met with staff from the Building Division and the Fire Marshal's office to discuss the building separation requirements as outlined in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC). As part of that discussion, staff pointed out a local amendment to the IBC that requires a four -hour rating for all firewalls. Lance said that the IBC, as written, allows a firewall to be rated two hours, three hours, or four hours, depending on the occupancy group and construction type. In this particular case, the IBC would require a two hour rated firewall between the new MOB and the adjacent buildings. However, our local amendment requires a four hour rated firewall between the new MOB and the adjacent buildings. Lance also said there is a requirement that firewalls be structurally independent. He continued, by saying that, in theory, you could have total loss of construction on one side and the wall would still be standing. Lance continued by referencing the staff report and stating that the applicant can meet the four hour requirement for the fire wall between the new MOB and the existing MOB. However, because of the height difference between the new MOB and the hospital, a four hour rated firewall is much more difficult to construct. Lance said that after exploring options to the firewall requirement between the new MOB and the hospital, the applicant decided to seek a variance. Lance then continued by explaining the drawing layout submitted by the applicant. Lance said that the applicant is asking the Board to accept two, two -hour firewalls instead of one four -hour rate wall. He said what the applicant is proposing is to make the exterior wall of the existing hospital a two -hour rated wall and when he begins the construction build a two -hour rated wall as part of the new MOB. In theory, Lance continued, you could argue that two, two -hour rated walls, each connected to the adjacent construction, is as good as one four -hour rated wall constructed independently. 2 of 6 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Aril 15, 2002 - Minutes M Lance said the staff's recommendation was to approve the variance request, based on the fact that there are inherent complications in building a new building in between two existing buildings. He added that, in this case, it causes some design concerns with respect to structural instability. Larry Patton asked why the local amendment requires a four -hour wall? Lance said this was a carryover from 1994 Standard Building Code. He added that he still felt it was a good idea to have it as a local amendment. The Board discussed the amendment and the two -hour rated walls versus a four -hour rated wall for a short time. Dan Sears opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the item. Leon Williamson with Williamson's Group Architect took the floor. He said he wanted to speak in favor of the variance request. He said they are dealing with life safety regardless of how we look at our firewalls and penetrations. He said he wanted to remind the Board that the hospital, by Texas Department of Health's (TDH) rules, also requires a two -hour rated wall separating the buildings. He said all the buildings would be hooked to a common fire alarm system that will be annunciated in the existing hospital, which is also required by the TDH. Mr. Williamson said the fire alarm panel would be manned 24 hours a day. He added that all three buildings would be sprinkled. He said because of all the fire safety systems in the buildings that it will be difficult to have a fire, let alone one that will not be suppressed, that would burn through a four -hour fire. He said he was asking for a reduction in the firewall capacity to two- hours. He said there were a couple of reasons why they were asking for the variance. He said one is that the existing hospital wall is 53 foot 9 1/2 inch high and it is very difficult, virtually impossible, to build in a single stem wall that spans that height. He said if that wall were to be free standing it would be impossible to support it for not only the first three floors but especially that fourth floor. He explained, in detail, the problems with building a four -hour wall that high. He then offered to answer questions that the board might have. The Board did not have any questions. Dan Sears asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the item. Dan Sears asked if anyone was ready to make a motion. The Board discussed the item for a moment and Mark Clayton asked if we needed this amendment in the ordinance. The Board discussed this for a short time. Lance joined the discussion and they agreed that at this time they would leave it as it is and if there were several variance requests of this kind, then they would look at re- evaluating the amendment requiring a four hour rated wall. Kevin Kuddes asked what the Fire Marshal's stance was on this issue. Lance told him that the Fire Marshal supports granting the variance. Glenn Thomas asked Mr. Williamson about the doors in the firewalls. Mr. Williamson said the main 3 of 6 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Aril 15, 2002 - Minutes reason is for egress. He briefly explained to the Board the process of how the doors would need to work. Frank Cox motioned to accept staff's recommendation. Kevin Kuddes seconded the motion. The motion passed (5 -1), with Board member Mark Clayton voting in opposition to the motion and Larry Patton abstaining from the vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 : Public hearing and discussion of the use of nonmetallic — sheathed cable (AKA Romex) in education occupancies with possible action recommending an amendment to Article 336, 1999 National Electrical Code. Dan Sears asked staff to brief the Board on the request. Lance Simms took the floor and told the Board that they heard this item at two previous meetings so this would be the third time. He said during those meetings, staff reviewed the allowable use of romex under the 1999 National Electrical Code (NEC) and presented some options to the Board on restricting the use of romex in education occupancies. He added that the majority of the discussion centered on whether or not to include daycares and private or parochial schools in any proposed amendment to the code. He said they had also discussed the possibility of College Station Independent School District including a provision in their construction specifications that prohibits the use of romex in their facilities. He then said one question raised by the Board was if it was legal to have an amendment prohibiting the use of romex in public schools but allowing it to be used in private schools and daycares. He said at that time Joe Jackson was our legal support and since then Angela Deluca had taken over as our legal support. He told the Board that he had asked Angela if she could take over this research project. Lance then turned the floor over to Angela Deluca. Angela took the floor and said she had researched the issue and that she did not feel it would be a good idea to exclude private or parochial schools in any amendment to the NEC. She said if the Board is going to make a change to prohibit the use of Romex in educational schools, it would need to include all or none. She said this was her opinion based on the legal research she had done. Angela said she thought there may be some issues with equal protection laws if any group was excluded. She added that if CSISD could prohibit the use of Romex in their building specs then that would be the better route to go. Dan Sears opened the public hearing. 4of6 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Aril 15, 2002 - Minutes Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the item. George McLean said that he felt if they put the Romex restriction in the school's specifications, it would be overlooked. He added that he personally felt that Romex did not have a place in schools. He said Houston did not allow the use Romex in any school. He then said that his concern is the potential of mechanical damage that can occur to Romex if it is laid across metal objects. He said it was never his intention to penalize any other type of schools or daycares by making this proposal. He then said that he would abstain from voting. Dan Sears asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor or opposition to the item. Dan Sears closed the Public hearing. Kevin Kuddes asked if the Houston requirement was written in their school specs or the City Ordinance? George McLean said it was in the City Ordinance and had been there since 1955. The Board discussed the Romex issue further. They reviewed the issues they had talked about in the previous two meetings. Mark Clayton pointed out that if the City did adopt an amendment restricting Romex in educational occupancies and a small daycare was affected by it that they could always seek a variance. The Board discussed this item again for a short time. Dan asked if anyone would like to make a motion. Larry Patton motioned to have an amendment made to the NEC that does not allow the use of Romex in educational facilities, and that this item be brought to the council for adoption at a future date. Glenn Thomas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (6 -0) with George McLean abstaining from the vote. Dan Sears and Glenn Thomas said that they had some issues that they needed to discuss that were brought to them by some local contractors. Lance Simms and Angela Deluca said that they would need to have those items put on another agenda in order to discuss them. The Board agreed to do this and Dan Sears moved to agenda item number seven. 29 5 of 6 "CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Aril 15, 2002 - Minutes I AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 Adjourn Larry Patton motioned to adjourn. Glenn Thomas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (7 -0). The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Chairman: Dan Sears ATTEST: Staff Assistant: Marla E. Brewer 6 of 6