Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1021 MinutesBUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 21, 2010, 2010, 2:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: VISITORS: CALL TO ORDER: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Chuck Kellenberger; Tom Lohbauer; and Dick Sinnett, . Dave'Feas and Joe Nickels, Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; and Sandra Kolba Vince Cuchetto, Code Enforcement Manager, and Marc Mylott, Director of Community Development The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:35 p.m., in the 2nd Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the August 25, 2010, meeting was presented. A motion was made by Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Dick Sinnett to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS: Prior to the beginning of the agenda as written, Pat Hudgens indicated that we would skip to Item 4, New Business, due to the fact that Vince Cuchetto and Marc Mylott were present to discuss a situation arising out of a discrepancy between the International Residential Code and the Property Maintenance Code regarding ceiling heights. Raoul Johnston started the discussion by passing out several handouts for use with the discussion: 1) Appendix J, Section AJ501, of the 2009 International Residential Code (with Commentary); 2) Appendix J, Section J601, of the 2009 International Residential Code (with Commentary); 3) Section 8305, Ceiling Height, of the 2009 International Residential Code (with Commentary); 4) Section 404, Occupancy Limitations, of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code (with Commentary); and 5) Proposed Amendments to Appendix J of the 2009 International Residential Code and Proposed Amendment to the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code. The portion of the code that was up for debate was referring to habitable spaces in existing basements and whether ceiling heights in specific rooms should be at 6'8" or 7'. It was agreed that rooms such as laundry rooms, recreation rooms and study rooms could have ceiling heights of 6'8" but that rooms such as kitchens and bedrooms must have a minimum ceiling height of 7'. What was up for discussion was mainly bathrooms which there is a discrepancy on between the two codes and whether a bathroom should be considered a habitable or non - habitable space. In the both the 2009 International Residential Code and the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code a bathroom is considered a habitable room. However, the IRC allows the ceiling height of a bathroom to be not less than 6'8 ". In the IPMC considers a bathroom to be a habitable room and requires the ceiling height to be T, but there is an exception in that code which indicates that certain rooms occupied exclusively for laundry, study or recreations purposes, could have ceiling heights of 6'8 ". Vince Cuchetto indicated that the main concern of the Property Maintenance Department was that it does not want illegal dwelling units in basements and especially no bedrooms. Vine's biggest concern is life- safety in the event of a fire and, if it is allowed to lower the ceiling height requirements in a bathroom, then reduction in the ceiling heights in kitchens and bedrooms may soon follow. Unfortunately, due to another commitment, Vince had to leave this meeting. Dave Decker indicated that he has had conversations with Vince in the past and another one of Vince's concerns is odors, germs and other health concerns created by lower ceiling heights but Dave indicated that bathrooms now are required to have either a window or an exhaust fan which would alleviate those types of problems. Discussion continued on the matter insofar as whether the Building Commission should adopt the new language as proposed by Raoul but Marc Mylott indicated that, based on Vince's comments during and before he Ieft the meeting, it was obvious that he was not 100% convinced that he was not in full agreement and felt that there was need for further discussion on the matter. 2 Comments were made by the members wondering why 4" would really matter and it was agreed that lower ceilings create more heat, less visibility and less air in the event of a fire. It was also brought up as to why bathrooms would be considered any different than a laundry room or recreation room, both rooms where people don't sleep in, and why bathrooms should not be included in that group which currently allows for ceiling heights 68" in the IPMC. Pat Hudgens believed that the concern about basement ceiling heights had been discussed maybe ten years ago at a Property Maintenance Board of Appeals meeting but did not know if there was any record about that discussion. Pat suggested that someone check with the City Clerk to see if there might be any minutes for that old meeting which would give some insight into the discussion had in the past on this matter. It was Marc's opinion and the agreement of the Committee that this discussion should continue and the matter was tabled for further discussion at a future meeting. Pat asked that this request be put in the form of a motion. Dick Sinnett made the motion to table this discussion, Tom Lohbauer seconded the motion, and after an oral vote, it was unanimous that this matter would be tabled. CONTINUE TO REVIEW ISCUSS CHANGES TO 2009 I.B.C: Section 1002.1; Means of Egress Definitions: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1005.1; Minimum Required Egress Width: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Sections 1007.3 and 1007.4; Required Area of Egress: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Sections 1007.6.3 and 1007.8; Two -way Communication Systems: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1008.1.2, Exception 9; Manually Operated Horizontal Sliding Doors: Raoul indicated that the difference from this code and previous code is that, in the past, sliding doors were not allowed; side hinges were required. Sliding doors are now allowed. After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1008.1.9.4; Manually Operated Edge- or Surface- Mounted Bolts: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1008.1.9.6; Special Locking Conditions for Group 1-2: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1008.1.9.8; Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 100914• Roof Access to Elevator: Raoul indicated that a full stairway is now required going up to the roof, not just a ladder. After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1011.1; Required Exit Sign Locations: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1012.3; Handrail Graspability: Dave Decker indicated that this was a good change because a reasonably sized handrail is needed for gripping. After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1013.1; Required Locations for Guards: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1013.2; Minimum Guard Height at Fixed Seating: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1013.3; Guard Opening Limitations: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1016.2• Travel Distance Increase for Roof Vents - DELETED: Steve Silva was concerned that larger industrial buildings would not comply with the new travel distances and may have to be reviewed on this on a case -by -case basis, especially on F -1 and S -1 classifications. Raoul was concerned that, if looked at on a case -by -case basis, it should be looked at by the Commission rather than just by a Code Official so that it wouldn't look like discrimination if just one person would make that decision. Raoul also suggested that this can be amended back to the current code being used. After brief discussion,, it was agreed that more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1018.4; Maximum Length of Dead Ends in Corridors: Raoul was concerned about classification R4 which would include assisted living facilities and the like and was concerned about increasing the distance from 20' to 50' in cases such as those. After brief discussion, , it was agreed that more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1021.2; Single Exits from Individual Stories: Raoul indicated that this changed buildings with one exit to stories with one exit and that a lot of questions arise out of this Section. After brief discussion, , it was agreed that more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1024; Luminous Egress Path Markings: Raoul indicated that this Section is completely new. It requires markings on handrails, stairways, corridors, etc., such as tape on floors. A comment was made that the areas mentioned above already would be lit with emergency lighting. However, the thought was that this was mainly for the use of firefighters after the emergency lighting goes out and also on floors where the smoke is so thick that you can't see with emergency lighting. This code essentially affects buildings over 75° and the City of Elgin does not have a lot of buildings of that height. After further brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1028.1; Egress for Group E Assembly Spaces: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1028.4; Egress Through Lobbies Serving Assembly Spaces: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Sections 1402.1 and 1408; Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIPS): Raoul said that the City Council may, in the future, want to revisit the use of EIFS. However, it was agreed that, if installed correctly, it is a good system, but that is a big "if" and, if not installed properly, this system can cause major problems. After further brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1509.2; Penthouse Height, Area, and Use Limitations: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1602 and Table 1607.1• Live Loads for Decks and Balconies: After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels was in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1604.8.2; Anchorage of Walls: After brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 1604.8.3; Loading Conditions on Cantilevered Decks: After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels was in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1613.6.3; Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels and Elgin Fire Department representative Ron Sessions were in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1613.7; Anchorage of Walls: After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels was in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 161.4; Structural Integrity of High Rise Buildings: After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels and Elgin Fire Department representative Ron Sessions were in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 1704; Special Inspector Qualifications Exemption for R -3 Occupancies: Steve Silva was concerned about this Section in that it sounded like he or his company would have to hire a special inspector. After brief discussion, it was agreed that this matter should be discussed when Commission member Joe Nickels was in attendance and more research would needed to be done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. As time was running out, it was agreed among the members of the Building Commission that the bulk of the rest of the items to be reviewed should have both Commission member Joe Nickels and Elgin Fire Department representative Ron Sessions in attendance to discuss the matters for effectively and make better decisions on the remaining Sections. NEW BUSINESS: Other than the New Business discussed above regarding ceiling heights, no other new business was discussed. Raoul indicated that he would attempt to set up another meeting in November and would send the notice for that meeting in a timely manner. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Steve Silva to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m., and seconded by Dick Sinnett. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, L. Kolba` Acting Secretary Date: / ���