Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0224 MinutesBUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, February 24,2010,3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: BUILDERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Pat Hudgens; Joseph Nickels; Dick Sinnett; and Steve Silva, Tom Lohbauer; Chuck Kellenberger; and Dave Teas. Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; and Sandra Kolba. Mark Stefan, Kings Court Builders. The meeting of the Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Pat Hudgens at 3:05 p.m., in the 2nd Floor South Tower Conference Room at the Elgin City Hall. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 4, 2010, meeting was presented. Sandra Kolba indicated that, since the minutes were originally e- mailed to the members earlier in the week, a change had been made, she handed out new copies of the revised minutes, and she indicated specifically what changes were made. A motion was made by Joe Nickels and seconded by Steve Silva to approve the revised minutes and they were unanimously approved. SUMMARY OF MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2010 DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER CODE: Although not part of this meeting's agenda, Raoul indicated to the Commission members and its guest that the last meeting held on February 4, 2010, was dedicated specifically to the Residential Sprinkler Code and the plan is to revisit it again at the scheduled meeting on March 10, 2010. The builders at the last meeting were invited to attend the March 10 meeting and bring with them the costs for additional items which would increase the cost of a sprinkler system to a residence such as the cost to increase the size of a tap from 1" to 1 -1/4 ". A concern among the Commission members was the taps that have already been installed in subdivisions such as Highland Woods and the potential cost of increasing the sizes to accommodate the sprinkler requirements. Other concerns were: l) whether the tap would be installed before or after the meter; and 2) if water would be shut off to one unit of a townhome, would the other units be protected? A final concern was the need to amend the sections pertaining to the thickness of walls in the current Residential Building Code if the Residential Sprinkler Code was not adopted. It was agreed that all of these were concerns that should be discussed in detail at the next meeting on March 10. REVIOVDISCUSS CHANGES TO I.R.C. AND AMENDMENTS (NOT TO INCLUDE FIRE SPRINKLERS AND SEPARATION ISSUES): At the conclusion of the meeting held on January 21, 2010, since only Sections R101.2 (Item 1) through Sections R319.1 (Item 13) were discussed before running out of time, it was agreed that, at this meeting, the Commission would continue its discussion starting with Section R403.4 (Item 14). 14. Section 403.4 — Footings for precast concrete foundations. It was agreed that the city uses Seismic Design Category B as its code. Steve's main concern was Section 403.4.1. Pat agreed that Section 403.4.1 was not acceptable but Section 403.4.2 was okay and the Commission members agreed. Additional discussion was had regarding the use of crushed stone under precast foundations, if leveling could become a problem, and if there would have to be a compaction standard. Joe wondered if it would be necessary for a soil engineer to look at the soil under the precast foundations and it was agreed that most builders would do a soil test depending upon the location of the home and the obvious soil conditions. Dave Decker said that soil tests were done at the city's discretion. Raoul indicated that a builder would prefer to do a soil test prior to construction rather than rebuild a house. Mark Stefani assumed that, since the precast foundations are allowable in the code book, the manufacturers must have taken engineering factors, with backup data, into consideration. It was suggested that, with the use of precast foundations and /or crushed gravel under those precast foundations, perhaps some kind of plaque should be mounted on the house so that, in the event someone wanted to alter the house 20 years down the road, they would be aware of that fact. After an in -depth discussion of this Section, it was the consensus of the Commission that Section 403.4.1, Crushed Stone Footings, should be completely deleted from the Code. Raoul indicated that, if a builder wanted to use crushed stone footings for some reason, they could propose a variance at the time of plan review. 15. 404.5 - Precast concrete foundation walls. After a brief discussion on the pros and cons of precast concrete walls, and the interesting factor that it appeared that there were specific specs for precast concrete foundation walls but not for precast concrete footings, it was the consensus of the Commission that this Section was okay and should remain. 16. Section R502.2.2.1 & Table R502.2.2.1- Deck ledger connection to band joist. It was agreed that the biggest problem was Section 502.2.2.3, deck lateral load connection. It was agreed that, based on the way the code was written, it was "overkill" because of the recent occurrences where decks have collapsed because of either too many people on the deck or too many people standing on one side of the deck, etc. It was agreed that the strength of decks depends on the proper size and number of piers and footings, angle lags, etc. Raoul indicated that, currently, plan review requires that, any deck that is 4' or higher above grade must have architectural or structural engineer drawings submitted which already takes into consideration lateral loading. The consensus of the Commission was to not make any changes to this Section. 17. Section 602.10 - Wall bracing. Raoul indicated that it appeared that a lot has changed in this Section. Joe and Steve indicated that neither of them have had an opportunity to thoroughly study this Section and needed more time to do so before giving their opinion on what should or should not be changed in this Section. The Commission agreed to defer discussion on this Section to a future meeting. 18. Section R606.12.2.1- Minimum length of wall without openings The Commission agreed that this Section refers only to Seismic Design Category C and does not apply to the city's Category B status. The consensus was to not make any changes to this Section. 19. Section R612.2 Window sills. Mark indicated that he believed the only change to this Section was the addition of two exceptions, #2 and #4. Dave indicated that this Section basically just upgraded the standards. The consensus of the Commission was that it was okay and no changes were needed. 20. Section 8613 - STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL WALL CONSTRUCTION. Raoul said that this whole Section has changed. Joe indicated that he looked at this Section and it was good in his opinion. It is used more and more with wall bracing and insulation. It still requires the use of conduit even though it was not meant to use conduit. Raoul indicated that the city would not reject the use of this type of construction but would require conduit. The consensus of the Commission was that it was okay as written. 21. Section R806 - ROOF VENTILATION. Again, Raoul indicated that this whole Section has changed. After a short discussion about the pros and cons of this Section, the consensus of the Commission was that it was okay as written. 22. Chapter 11- ENERGY EFFICIENCY. Raoul indicated that this Chapter is identical to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code and recommends deleting this Chapter from the Residential Code entirely. Mark wondered why the city would delete it if it was the same and Dave responded that, if the State changed the Code, then the Residential Code would also have to be changed. Raoul indicated that the city would refer strictly to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. It was the consensus of the Commission to delete this Chapter. NEW BUSINESS: Raoul reiterated that the Commission would address Section R602.10 at a future meeting once Joe and Steve were able to thoroughly read and study that Section and make recommendations to the Commission. Raoul indicated that, at the next meeting, he would be handing out the new Building and Fire Code books. Once the Commission is done with the Residential Code (and the Residential Sprinkler Code), it will then address the Building Code and, once that is complete, address the Fire Code. Raoul indicated that the city is still using the 2003 Fire Code since the 2006 Fire Code was never adopted due to a conflict between the 2006 Building Code and its Amendments and the 2006 Fire Code and the Fire Department's proposed amendments which did not match the amendments in the Building Code. However, the Fire Department is no longer reviewing the codes and, instead, Raoul will be reviewing them so that they will match with the 2009 International Building Code. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 10, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. in the 1st Floor South Conference Room, at which time the discussion will continue on the issue of the Residential Sprinkler Code. Raoul reiterated that the builders are again invited to attend and to bring more detailed information related to the additional costs involved. There was no further new business discussed at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Steve Silva to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m., and seconded by Dick Sinnett. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, � I"& - Stndra L. Kolba Acting Secretary Date: / -f REVIEWJDISCUSS CHANGES TO I.R.C., FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS AND FIRE SEPARATIONS: Raoul Johnston began the meeting with a reminder that this meeting was a continuation of the February 4, 2010, discussion regarding the Residential Sprinkler Code and the pros, cons and /or alternatives that can be shared with the builders, the developers, city staff and the Building Commission. The information shared would help the Commission to make an educated decision whether to retain or opt out on that code. He reminded everyone that the city does not make the decision but makes only recommendations to the Commission. Raoul told the developers and builders that have attended these meetings that he appreciated their attendance and that their input was important for the Building Commission to fully understand the impact of its decision. He indicated that, in the 17 years he has done this, he believes that this particular code cycle will have the biggest impact on the cost of housing. If all of the changes in the all of the codes were enacted, the costs of building a house would increase by at least $20,000. Raoul indicated that it was necessary to weigh safety and economics and to find a fine balance and a solution that is livable since the city does not want construction to come to a screeching halt or put builders or developers out of business. Raoul indicated that his job is to make recommendations and/or suggest alternatives to the Building Commission. Some of the alternatives may not offer the same level of safety but he was open to other ideas that would not be cost prohibitive. Chuck wondered, if all municipalities opt out on the residential sprinkler system this code cycle, if the ICC would look at this again and perhaps eliminate it in the future. Raoul agreed that, due to the economy, it may be stalled for the time being but it is not something to be ignored. Both Raoul and Ron believed that the residential sprinkler code will not go away and, if not approved during this code cycle, it will be looked at again at the next one in 2012 and suggested that the builders and developers need to be proactive and plan ahead for it because it is definitely going to be back. Councilman Dunne introduced himself to the attendees. He indicated that he was a member of the Elgin City Council and that the City Council was aware of the builders' and developers' concerns and was willing to look at other options. He indicated that the purpose of the residential sprinkler code was not to protect property but, rather, protect the egress route on the inside of the house. He also said that the City Council was looking at things like spacing of hydrants, the sizes of mains, etc. He indicated that current subdivisions will be handled differently from new developments. The first issue discussed was taps. Most agree that, with a sprinkler system, the tap would have to be a larger than 1" and most agree that each house would get one tap which would split inside the house. Some houses that currently have sprinkler systems have that type of tap. If the sprinkler code was approved, the requirement would be only one tap. Raoul indicated that the infrastructure in current developments has 1" taps but 1 -1/4" taps would be required in any new developments. If the code is adopted by the city, there would have to be some way to come up with an alternative design with the 1" taps because it would not be in the best interest to rip up streets to install 1 -1/4" taps. Dick wanted to be sure that the city would not be liable if there was a lack of water to residences due to non - payment of the water bill and the sprinklers wouldn't work because of that. Raoul indicated that, after a discussion with the legal department on that matter, the city would not be liable. Steve Bone indicated that one way to service a house with a sprinkler is to have a T -tap with one direction going to the house service and the other direction going to the sprinkler so, if water would be shut off to the house, the sprinkler would still be active. Councilman Dunne indicated that, if the water was shut off for any reason, the house would be considered uninhabitable and there should be no occupants in the house in the event of a fire. Dick wondered if the 1" taps in current subdivisions would be considered "grandfathered" in. Raoul indicated that he believes that the 1" taps that are currently installed would be "grandfathered," but new developments would be required to put in 1 -1/4" to 1 -1/2" taps. Dick was also concerned about the water pressure with the 1" taps. Ron indicated that the pressure could be reduced and that, rather than using pressure of 170, sprinkler systems could still operate with a pressure of 130, which would be enough to protect the residents long enough to get out of the building. One of Raoul's biggest concerns was the fire rating of the walls. With the new residential sprinkler code, the walls only have to have a one -hour fire rating. Raoul said that, with the current products being used, adjacent units in a townhome sustain little or no damage due to the rating of the walls and he believed that, regardless of whether the residential sprinkler code was adopted or not, the walls still should have a two -hour fire rating. Craig indicated that his company would continue using the two -hour separation as the cost differences are insignificant. The attention was turned to the memorandum Raoul prepared for this meeting. He wondered, for example, whether option #1 was cost prohibitive. He said he knows that any of the options come with a price tag and wanted to know the opinions of the builders and developers as to what options are or are not feasible. He indicated that the options listed were open for discussion and that these alternatives should provide the same time -frame safety as a sprinkler system. Craig was interested in option #4 regarding the use of dimensional lumber for floor joists, ceiling joists and roof rafters (in place of roof trusses, open web floor trusses, or TJI floor joists). Ron responded that the floor construction is more important in comparison with the roof construction in the eyes of the fire department and that, if TJIs were used, the spacing should be reduced from 19.2" to 16" centers, probably adding three or four additional joists per floor, certainly not a substantial additional cost but certainly a substantial increase in the amount of safety for the fire department. Raoul indicated that another concern for safety was open web floor trusses because the metal plates pop off when heat is applied. He said that staff recommends that drywall be installed on the underside to protect those from heat, but concedes that that alternative adds additional costs, but that would then give builders the choice of still using TJIs. Based on that discussion, Chuck wondered if standard roof trusses were okay to use and if only a change in floor design was necessary and not a change in the roof design. He also wondered if the builders had figured out the costs of using 16" centers. Craig responded that he hadn't figured that cost because he didn't know that it was a possible alternative, but would calculate those costs for the next meeting. Ron believed that, with an average cost of $10,000 to install a residential sprinkler system, the cost of changing the spacing to 16" centers would be much less. Craig wondered if it was okay to use dimensional lumber on the first floor and TJIs on the upper level. Brian indicated that that was the way other communities were building homes. Raoul said that dimensional lumber would be cheaper than 16" center spacing. Anastasia wondered if the builders would have a choice and Raoul indicated that they would. Jennifer wondered how the cost of $10,000 for a sprinkler system was figured because, at the last meeting, there were only cost estimates. Raoul indicated that the estimate was based on what information he currently had which included taps and backflow preventers. He indicated that he has not yet received specific bids on the sample homes used at the last meeting. Jennifer was concerned that, due to the current price- sensitive market, the additional cost of a sprinkler system could kill the market and believed that a cost analysis needed to be done to figure out whether some concessions would save real costs. Craig believed that most of the items on the memorandum would cost no more than $3,500 in comparison to the sprinkler system cost of $10,000. Raoul believed that the most cost effective option was using TJIs and 16" centers which would add an additional three or four I- joists and may cost somewhere in the proximity of an additional $1,000. Dick wondered about the additional cost of electric and gas hook ups with the additional joists and it was agreed that that amount would also have to be figured into the costs. Craig also said that the additional cost of drywall would add to the ultimate cost. Steve Bone mentioned the spray -on material used for fire protection and insulation and suggested spraying that material onto the underside of the basement ceiling but wondered what a homeowner would then do if he wanted to finish the basement and put in electric or otherwise in the ceiling. Councilman Dunne indicated that the city, through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, was purchasing 12 homes and rehabbing them. There is a company that was going to install, at no charge, a retro- fitted sprinkler system into one of the homes and, at that time, we could get an idea of what the costs would be. He welcomed any builder or developer to come to that house while the sprinkler system was being installed to take a look at it. He indicated that the city would be sure that the sprinkler system would be installed in the largest of the homes that the city acquires. He indicated that this will be taking place in the near future, probably sometime in the summer. Craig said that he will take the information provided to him at this meeting and have his team figure prices. He asked whether a downgraded or limited system (with heads in the kitchen, mechanicals and garage) was a possible alternative. Steve Bone said that the cost difference would be minimal because the main cost of a sprinkler system is the main feed and the main riser and, if just reducing the number of heads, there would be only a nominal cost reduction. Craig asked about whether a house on a slab would have to be handled the same as a two -story home. Raoul indicated that there would be no cost for a sprinkler system in the basement and indicated that the suggested TJIs and spacing would be necessary only in a house with a basement. Mark indicated that the adoption date of the code would be important to builders. Raoul told the builders and developers that the code would probably be enforceable no sooner than August and more likely toward the end of the year. The effective date after approval would be at a date designated by the City Council. He reminded everyone that, once the Building Commission decides what its recommendations are, those go to legal department as a package and then the legal department proposes the package to the City Council. Councilman Dunne told the audience that, if interested in stating their cause to the City Council, people would have to go to the City Council meeting following the Committee of the Whole meeting that would have this particular matter on its agenda. If the matter is on the City Council agenda, there would be no public comment at that meeting. He also reminded everyone that there is a 30 -day public comment period for their opportunity to contact a City Council member or city official. Raoul indicated that he would inform all of the builders and developers when the matter comes before the Committee of the Whole so that they know which City Council meeting to come to if they want to be heard. Raoul told the attendees that he had gone to a sprinkler system demonstration. There were two 10'x 10' rooms, one with just a smoke detector, and the second with a sprinkler head. The room with the smoke detector burned until the smoke detector melted off the ceiling. At that point, which would be the approximate time frame that it would take for the fire department to arrive at the scene, it began to attack the fire. Obviously, there was considerable damage to the room and its contents. In the other room, the sprinkler went off even before the smoke detector. There was minimal damage. Raoul said he was surprised at the results. Steve Silva wondered if residential sprinkler systems were monitored by the fire department and was told they were not. Someone indicated that, with a sprinkler system, rather than significant fire damage, a house can sustain substantial water damage. Ron indicated that residential sprinklers put out approximately 15 gallons of water per minute compared to fire department hoses which put out about 100 gallons per minute, resulting in significant fire and water damage. Dick wondered, as it is with commercial insurance which gives discounts to buildings with sprinkler systems, if residential insurance fees would go down if the house had a sprinkler system. Mark said that he heard there could be a 5% to 10% discount and Councilman Dunne said he heard 7 %. Steve Silva wondered if residential sprinkler systems were monitored by the fire department and was told they were not. Steve Bone reminded everyone that there would also be a required annual inspection on the sprinkler systems which mainly checks the RPZ backflow preventer and costing about $50 each year, another cost to take into consideration. NEW BUSINESS: The next regular meeting of the Building Commission was scheduled to be on Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., with the location to be determined at a later date. There was no new business discussed at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Dick Sinnett to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m., and seconded by Chuck Kellenberger. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, " S dra L. Kolba Acting Secretary Date: I f- 10