Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1109 MinutesBUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, November 9,2010,2010,2:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: VISITORS: CALL TO ORDER: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer; Dick Sinnet; Dave Teas and Joe Nickels Chuck Kellenberger Raoul Johnston, Ron Sessions and Sandra Kolba Vince Cuchetto, Code Enforcement Manager Property Maintenance Board of Appeals members: Jay Cox; Patrick Hines, Pat Hudgens, Gary Lichthardt, Steve Silva, and acting secretary Cindy Walden The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:40 p.m., in the 2nd Floor South Tower Conference Room, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the October 21, 2010, meeting was presented. A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer and seconded by Dick Sinnett to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. DISCUSSION BETWEEN COMMISSION AND BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING CEILING HEIGHT CODE CONFLICTS: A motion was made by Joe Nickels to un -table the discussion regarding ceiling heights in basement bathrooms which was tabled at the last meeting of the Building Commission on October 21. Tom Lohbauer seconded the motion and the topic was back open for continued discussion. Raoul Johnston indicated that city staff, including himself, Marc Mylott and Vince Cuchetto, had come to an agreement regarding the 2006 International Residential Code until the 2009 Code is adopted, whereas the new proposal amends the term "bathroom" to "toilet room" in the basement of an existing structure without 7' ceiling heights. Raoul indicated that a "toilet room" has no bathing facilities and, therefore, having a toilet room rather than a bathroom would hinder putting a bedroom in a basement but would still allow the intermittent use of dens, recreation rooms and studies the availability of a toilet and hand washing facility. The Property Maintenance Code allowed rooms such as dens, recreation rooms, studies and such, rooms which would be used intermittently, to have ceiling heights of 6'8 ". Raoul indicated that, if the City does not allow 6'8" ceiling heights on those occasions, people will sneak these rooms illegally and will end up with problems. If allowed, people will obtain permits and have the necessary inspections to guarantee that the rooms were put in properly. Pat Hudgens indicated that it was his impression at the last meeting that most of the attendees felt comfortable with the discussion at that time but that Vince Cuchetto, who had to leave the meeting early, still felt uncomfortable with the propositions, so the subject was tabled for further discussion at the next meeting. Vince Cuchetto responded that he appreciated that the matter was tabled and indicated that he has seen on many occasions where people have put in illegal basement rooms with the incorrect ceiling heights. He felt that the compromise of only allowing a "toilet room" would keep basement bedrooms to a minimum. Pat agreed that this was a good compromise and that all attendees of the Building Commission meeting were on the same page. Raoul reiterated that it would be a lot easier if both the building and property maintenance departments were following the same code and it would alleviate a lot of problems. A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer to adopt the amendment to Appendix J of the IRC; Joe Nickels seconded the motion; a vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously. Pat asked the members of the Property Maintenance Board of Appeals if they would vote to adopt this language or if it was something that was done internally within the Property Maintenance Department. Jay Cook said that it was the job of the Property Maintenance Board of Appeals to recommend changes to the City Council. He asked for someone within that commission to make a motion to amend Section 404.3 into the 2009 Property Maintenance Code. Pat Hudgens made the motion, Gary Lichthardt seconded the motion; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Raoul indicated that, although both Commissions approved the 6'8" ceiling heights in "toilet rooms' in basements, it would still go before the City Council 2 and they may or may not agree. Jay Cook asked if the I.C.C. had been notified of the differences in the codes and Raoul indicated that he had sent them a letter but had received no response to date, saying that the I.C.C. generally has two general responses to inquiries: 1) they will get back to you; and 2) use the strictest code. Gary asked when this matter would go before the City Council and Raoul indicated that the estimated date would be sometime in March of 2011 due to the fact that he wanted all of the Codes to be looked at before presenting a package to the City Council for approval. Pat Hudgens added that it would go before the City Council sometime before the next code changes in 2012. The Property Maintenance Board of Appeals motioned and approved the adjournment of their portion of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Raoul indicated that he wanted to take care of some new business before the Commission continued its review of the changes to the 2009 I.B.C. He handed out a sheet referencing various code sections of the 2009 International Fire Code that he was hoping to go over at the next scheduled Building Commission meeting. He indicated that Chapter 46 was a new chapter added to the International Fire Code regarding Existing Buildings and what can be enforced in an existing building. He indicated that Chapter 46 was not as drastic as the Life Safety Code but had some additional safety without getting extreme. Raoul indicated that once the Commission finishes with the International Building Code, they will only have the International Fire Code to review. CONTINUE TO REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO 2009 I.B.C: Section 419, Live Work Units: This section was tabled at the August 25+1, meeting as Raoul wanted to coordinate this section with the Zoning Ordinance and that more research needed to be done. After further review was done and a brief discussion was had, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out and it will be left as it is; all present agreed. Section 903.2.7; Sprinkler Systems in Group M Furniture Stores: This section was tabled at the August 25u1 meeting for further research. After further discussion, it was decided that condition 4, "A Group M occupancy is used for the display and sale of upholstered furniture," was already covered in the sprinkler requirements in the 2006 International Building Code for buildings over 7,500 square feet and, therefore, condition 4 will be amended out; all present agreed. Section 1016.2• Travel Distance Increase for Roof Vents - DELETED: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. After further discussion at this meeting, it was agreed that the exception at issue, which changed the distance from 400 feet to 250 feet, would be difficult to use in a large production facility. Ron Sessions indicated that he had no issue with the distances as the fire department would override it anyway. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the exception, on E1 and S1 classifications, should be amended back into the code; all present agreed. Section 1018.4; Maximum Length of Dead Ends in Corridors: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. Steve Silva indicated that he has read the entire Section and it is okay in his opinion as it was written. After a 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 1021.2; Single Exits from Individual Stories: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. Steve Silva also read through this Section and indicated that it is trying to simplify that a two story building with one "rated stair' coming down the front of the building is small enough so that no back stair would be needed. After a 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: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. A discussion ensued regarding the loads, per square feet, on balconies and decks, whether cantilevered or supported. Pat Hudgens suggested that it goes back to the standards in the 2006 IBC. Joe Nickels suggested that Item 5 in the table be amended to be same as occupancy served but a minimum of 60 psf. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that Item 5 in the table be amended to be the same as occupancy served by a minimum of 60 psf; all present agreed. Section 1604.8.3; Loading Conditions on Cantilevered Decks: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. After a 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 1613.6.3; Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. After a 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 1613.7; Anchorage of Walls: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. After a 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 1614; Structural Integrit of Rise Buildings. This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. After a 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 1704; Special Inspector Qualifications Exemption for R -3 Occupancies: This section was discussed briefly at the last meeting but tabled as there was a need for a structural engineer's opinion and additional research on this topic. Raoul indicated that it has used special inspectors but a structural engineer is not qualified to do an inspection but, rather, just observations. After a 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 1704.3.4 and 1704.6.2; Special Inspection for the Bracing of Trusses: After a 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. Chapter 21; Masonry: After a 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 2111.3, 2113.3; Seismic Reinforcing of Fireplaces and Chimneys: After a 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 2208.1; Seismic Design of Storage Racks: After a 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 /Table 2304.6.1; Wood Structural Panel Sheathing Used to Resist Wind Loads: After a 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 2308.3.2; Braced Wall Line Connections: After a 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 2308.9.1; Continuous Wall Studs: After a 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 3002.4• Elevator Car Size to Accommodate Stretcher: Ron Sessions suggested that the stretcher width requirements be changed from 24" to 30 ". Raoul suggested that this Section should be compared to the Elevator Code and he will contact Thompson Elevator for that purpose. It was agreed that this necessary research would need 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 3007; Fire Service Access Elevators: Raoul suggested that this Section should be compared to the Elevator Code and he will contact Thompson Elevator for that purpose. It was agreed that this necessary research would need 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 3008; Occupant Evacuation Elevators: Raoul suggested that this Section should be compared to the Elevator Code and he will contact Thompson Elevator for that purpose. It was agreed that this necessary research would need 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 3401.4; Applicability of the International Existing Building Code: Raoul suggested that this Section of the code be used rather than using International Existing Building Code but to allow it as an alternative and also treating existing buildings as we have always treated existing buildings. After a 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. NEW BUSINESS: Raoul made an announcement that Joe Nickels will stay on the Building Commission until the Commission gets through all of the current codes but that, due to family issues and a possible move, will be retiring as a commission member. Joe indicated that he would investigate to attempt to find a new candidate for the position of Structural Engineer on the Building Commission. Raoul also asked that all of the members think about who might be able to replace Joe on the Commission. Raoul thanked Joe for all of his hard work and years of service. Raoul indicated that he would attempt to set up another meeting after Thanksgiving but before Christmas to discuss the International Fire Code. He indicated that there really wasn't a lot to discuss other than Chapters 9,10 and 46, with the latter probably needing the most discussion. He indicated that he would send the notice for that meeting in a timely manner. No other new business was discussed. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Dick Sinnett to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m., and seconded by Tom Lohbauer. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 4 Aolba Acting Secretary Date: I/ 0