Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0310 MinutesBUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 10, 2010,3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Sinnett; Steve Silva; Dave Teas; Chuck Kellenberger. MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Nickels; Tom Lohbauer; and Pat Hudgens STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston, Steve Bone; Ron Sessions and Sandra Kolba VISITORS PRESENT: Rich Dunne, City Council member BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders Craig Stempowski, Pulte Homes Anastacia Hennessey, Crown Community Development Jennifer Cowan, Crown Community Development Brian Nelson, Ryland Homes CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Raoul Johnston at 3:10 p.m., in the 2nd Floor North Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Due to the nature and purpose of this meeting, the minutes of the February 24, 2010, meeting was not presented and it was agreed that those minutes would be presented for approval at the next regular meeting of the Building Commission. Rather, a copy of the approved February 4, 2010, minutes were made available to the attendees as a reminder of the previous discussions had regarding the new Residential Sprinkler Code. 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