HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Building Commission Minutes & Agendas r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
January 21, 2010
3:00 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 2010
in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Distribution of 2009 International Energy Conservation Code books.
4. Review/Discuss changes to I.R.C. and amendments.
5. New Business
6. Adjournment
r
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday, January 21, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Nickels; Dick Sinnett; Chuck Kellenberger; and Pat
Hudgens.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Lohbauer; Steve Silva; Dave Teas
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; and Sandra
Kolba
VISITORS PRESENT: None
BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 3:10 p.m., in the 2"d Floor South Tower
Conference Room.
r
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Both the minutes of the August 26, 2009 and December 2, 2009 meetings were presented.
Since there was no quorum for the December 2, 2009, minutes, they were approved as
presented. A motion was made by Dick Sinnett and seconded by Chuck Kellenberger to
approve the minutes for the August 26, 2009 meeting and a unanimous vote approved
those minutes.
DISTRIBUTION OF 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
BOOKS:
Raoul Johnston handed out the new International Energy Conservation Code Books to Joe
Nickels, Chuck Kellenberger and Dick Sinnett. Raoul indicated that the code was
mandated by the State for residential and commercial and will be adopted as well for the
Residential Code sometime between now and mid-March. He indicated that the Energy
Code would be easier for the City to enforce if it was adopted by the City. He also
indicated that there was no ability to amend it at all which could create some drawbacks if
adopted. A short discussion was had regarding some of the drawbacks of that the new code
could create for the City as well as contractors. This subject was tabled for a more detailed
discussion at a later date.
r
rThere also was a short discussion had regarding the new residential sprinkler codes. Raoul
indicated that he has sent two house plans to Fox Valley Fire &Safety for pricing. The first
was a ranch house on a slab (with pricing for a sprinkler in the kitchen, near the
mechanicals, and in the attached garage) and the second was a two-story with basement
(with pricing for a 13D sprinkler system in the kitchen, near the mechanicals, and in the
attached garage). He indicated that the prices he has gotten prior to this exercise was
showing prices at $1.80 to $6.30 per square foot but the determination of living space
square footage was vague. There was concern among the members about the new sprinkler
requirements affecting the thickness and construction of walls and ceilings. The final
question was whether the residential sprinkler requirements should be amended out
completely or looked at in other ways.
Pat also indicated that there was still discussion to be had regarding water service and what
size service a home should be required to have. Raoul indicated that he had talked to State
Representative Keith Farnham to see if there could be a legislative discussion regarding
whether there really is the need, and therefore a requirement, for a bigger water service in
homes.
REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO I.R.C. AND AMENDMENTS:
rRaoul passed out a list of codes in the 2009 International Resident Code which he felt were
questionable and in need to being amended by the City. He indicated that the City was
looking to get everyone's thoughts on these codes and get a better feel about the possibility
of changing them. The Commission went through the following codes individually:
1. Section R101.2 - Scope and Application Raoul indicated that his
recommendation would be to delete the exception to the code. He agreed that
the scope should not be deleted, just the exception. The Committee agreed.
2. Section R105.3.11 - Determination of substantially improved or
substantially damaged existing buildings in flood hazard areas Raoul
indicated that Federal and State guidelines supersede this code. He also
indicated that the City follows the Kane County ordinance and homes need to
be built at least 2 feet higher than flood elevation. A discussion ensued using an
example of a home that was flooded last year which could not be repaired or
rebuilt at its same location. Raoul said that he would look at the code to see if it
should be deleted out or amended to coincide with the Kane County standards.
3. Section R202 - Definitions The question Raoul posed was whether any of
the definitions needed to be changed or any definitions be added to the code.
His opinion was that nothing needed to be changed but opened up discussion to
see if any of the Commission members wanted to change or add anything. Pat
indicated that most of the definitions made sense.
4. Sections R302.1 - Exterior Walls; 302.2 - Townhouses; 302.3 - Two Family
Dwellings; 302.4 - Dwelling Unit Rated Penetrations; and 302.6 -
Dwelling/Garage Separation The Commission bundled this group into one
for discussion purposes in conjunction with the sprinkler issue. It was agreed
that, if the Commission decide to amend the sprinkler codes, it would need to
amend the 1-hour separation to a 2-hour separation on walls and attics. It was
also suggested that the code revert back to the 2006 code. The consensus was
that it was safe to err on the 2-hour wall since it works and doesn't cost too
much more. Dave indicated that he found that the shaft wall was ideal. Pat
indicated that the Commission will revisit this issue after the fire/sprinkler
debate is done.
5. Table 302.6 - Dwelling/Garage Separation Raoul indicated that the table
shows no protections and should be amended.
6. Sections R305.1 - Ceiling Height—Minimum Height; R305.1.1 Ceiling
Height - Basements Raoul indicated that this was not much of an issue but
changes have been made. The question was whether the ceiling height
requirement was 7' or 7'6" with or without projections. Raoul's suggestion was
to retain the exception from the 2006 code not now in the 2009 code, that there
would be at least 6'6" below the projection.
7. Section R313 - Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems By agreement of the
members of the Commission, the discussion on this Section was deferred to a
later date.
8. Section R314 - Smoke Alarms Raoul indicated that the Code had been
revised and that it looks like more but really isn't as it has given more options.
Most of the Commission members' discussion was regarding the need to, and
when it would be required to, permanently hardwire the smoke alarm systems in
homes and agreed that it should be a judgment call in the field and the use of
common sense. It was agreed that this Section would be revisited after doing
more research on it.
9. Section R315 - Carbon Monoxide Alarms Raoul indicated that this was a
State regulation and wondered if the City really even needed to adopt it but also
indicated that it probably would be easier for the City to enforce this code if it
was adopted to the City code. Mark wondered if you could replace the wording
of this code with the wording in the State code.
10. Section 319.1 - Address Numbers Raoul indicated that the Residential
Code requires 4" numbers while the Property Maintenance Code requires 5"
numbers. Pat also wondered if the code should include a provision of where the
numbers should be located. After a brief discussion on this matter, the
consensus was that: 1) alphabetical letters would not be allowed; 2) numbers
should be no less than 5" in height; and 3) wording should be added to the code
as to the specific locations where the address numbers would be displayed. This
discussion will be tabled for a future meeting for the exacting wording.
NEW BUSINESS: It was agreed by the Commission members that this meeting should be
continued for further discussion on the International Residential Code in two weeks rather
than a month and a meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:00 p.m., in
the 2t Floor South Conference Room.
There was no other new business discussed.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Dick Sinnett to adjourn the meeting at 4:40 p.m., and seconded
by Joe Nickels. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
ndra L. olba
Acting Secretary
r
r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
February 4, 2010
3:00 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010
in the 1St Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
1st Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Review/Discuss changes to I.R.C. and amendments.
4. New Business
5. Adjournment
r
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday,February 4, 2010,3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Nickels; Steve Silva; Dave Teas; Chuck
Kellenberger.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Sinnett; Tom Lohbauer; and Pat Hudgens
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; Ron Sessions
and Sandra Kolba
VISITORS PRESENT: Kurt Kojzarek, Home Builders Association of Greater
Chicago
BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders
Craig Stempowski, Pulte Homes
Anastacia Hennessey, Crown Community
Development
Jennifer Cowan, Crown Community Development
Dan Olsem, Crown Community Development
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Raoul Johnson at 3:25 p.m., in the 1st Floor
South Tower Conference Room.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting were presented. A motion was made
by Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Dave Teas to approve the minutes and
they were unanimously approved.
NEW RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CODE REQUIREMENT
DISCUSSION:
Due to the large presence of builders at this meeting,it was agreed that the
original agenda provided for this meeting covering the discussion of the balance
of the city's suggested amendments to the 2009 International Residential Code
t
was tabled to a future date and, instead, an open discussion was conducted
regarding the new residential sprinkler codes.
Raoul indicated that he had delivered some sample plans to the Fox Valley Fire
Safety Company to get estimated costs for residential sprinkler installations. The
samples were 1) a 1-story ranch, 3 bedrooms, 2 car attached garage, and 2,320 sq.
ft.; and 2) a 2-story, 4 bedrooms, 3 car attached garage, and 3,520 sq. ft. Raoul then
handed out a letter from Fox Valley Fire with some estimated costs but he
indicated that, based on the numbers provided, he had some additional questions
since the base amounts were the oddly the same for both homes. There was
concern among the attendees that the numbers shown in the estimates did not
include several additional costs, such as RPZ, backflow, taps, floor drain, vents,
booster pumps, etc. Raoul indicated that these estimates were just to cover the
sprinkler costs themselves.
Additional concern was the taps -the new requirement of 1-1/4" compared to 1".
Most subdivisions had 1" taps in place but, based on the information in the new
code,the taps would have to be at least 1-1/4", meaning that the city would have
to rip up completed roads and landscaping to replace the existing taps, something
that would be cost prohibitive. Another concern was that, if the water supply to
one unit of a townhouse was turned off for some reason,would the entire building
then be at risk? Raoul indicated that the city was taking this matter into account
and said that it had to decide whether to opt out on the sprinkler code or keep it
in. He said he checked with the legal department and was told that the city will
not hold additional liability if the code is opted out.
Raoul went on to explain how the adoption of codes works within the city. He
indicated that the staff reviews the new code and the changes involved. Once it is
established what codes have changed, the city suggests recommendations for
amendments and brings that information before the Building Commission which
ultimately votes on the recommended changes. Once that is done,the proposed
amendments go to the legal department for review and then presented to the City
Council to accept, amend and eventual adopt. Raoul indicated that he City
Council generally approves the Commission's recommendation,but that there are
no guarantees. Raoul asked that all of the builders' representatives leave their
cards with him so that he could keep them informed about when the matter will
come up before the City Council because that would be the time for them to
present their opinions. Raoul indicated that the process would probably go before
the City Council sometime July or thereafter.
Raoul indicating that the new residential sprinkler system code would have a huge
economic impact on the residential market. He indicated that Elgin was at 15%
unemployment and that unemployment drives the housing market. He also
indicated that in 2009, the city issued 151 new home permits (as compared to 150
per year in the 90's and 1,500 in 2005) and, yet, led the Chicagoland area in starts.
He agreed that safety factors need to be looked at but also take into consideration
the economical impact to keep housing stock safe but affordable. Raoul indicated
that, if the city did not adopt the sprinkler code,multiple changes would need to
be made to the code and that the city and Building Commission would have to
look at all aspects, i.e., appropriate separation, going back to conventional lumber,
etc.
Ron Sessions, of the Elgin Fire Department, indicated that one of that department's
concerns was the use of lightweight construction materials, such as thin web or
open web wooden I-joists,which burn faster and does not allow adequate time for
rescue, and recommended, instead, dimensional lumber. He added that, in his
opinion, roof trusses which currently meet code requirements are not safe. He
suggested that the use of lightweight trusses and sheathing would be okay if there
was better floor construction. Ron indicated that the fire department would agree
to a trade off - no required residential sprinklers but improved quality materials
and construction for life safety issues. He also indicated that the fire department
would be willing to work with other avenues such as plan review, etc. for viable
options. When asked what the fire department would be looking for in
construction standards, he indicated design, floor plan, 16" centers, structural
integrity, span, etc. as some examples.
After a lengthy discussion about the pros and cons of the new sprinkler code, life
safety issues, and building material quality, Raoul passed out a paper outlining
five possible options regarding whether or not to keep the sprinkler code, amend it
or opt out, and other possible options to look at.
Discussion continued regarding construction standards and whether a sprinkler
system should be considered instead as an option to buyers since the majority of
buyers now are trying to save money and probably, if offered the option of a
sprinkler system, would not opt for that option anyway. It was the consensus that
builders are working hard to try to bring the costs of homes to an affordable level
and, if required to add sprinkler systems to new homes, would drive the cost of
the homes back up and they would end up back at"square one." It was also
agreed that even a limited sprinkler system would be too costly. Most of the
builders felt that Option 4 was the best alternative. Craig Stempowski indicated
that he was going to do his own research on the costs of sprinkler systems and
would bring that research to the table at a later date. He also reminded the group
that it really isn't the cost of the materials that add up but, rather, the cost of the
labor. Raoul asked all of the builders if they could come up with, and provide to
the city, documents pertaining to the cost differences between things such as TGIs
compared to dimensional lumber, so that everyone could understand the costs
A
involved. Raoul also indicated that he would refine his options in order to
compare apples to apples.
Raoul reiterated that, due to the current economic situation,he believed that the
cost of requiring sprinklers in new residential construction was cost prohibitive.
He wants to see houses being built economically without sacrificing structural
integrity.
A suggestion was made that, depending upon the size of the home, perhaps over
5,000 square feet, then a sprinkler system could be required, and, for the most part,
if somebody could afford a home of that size,then they should be able to afford a
sprinkler system, however, the Commission's main focus of the suggestion was
that the larger the house, the greater exit distances for the occupants and greater
areas for the firefighters to search in a fire, resulting in longer exposure times for
them. A short discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of this suggestion,
but most agreed that this idea of size requirements may not be feasible.
A question was posed about how much loss of life Elgin has suffered due to a fire
and Steve Bone responded that, in his position of fire marshal for 20 years (7 years
ago), there were about 20 deaths, and the majority of those deaths were in his first
12 years. Steve indicated that, out of those 20 deaths, one fire took 5, one 4, and
another 3. He indicated that, once smoke detectors came along and were used
properly, numbers dramatically dropped.
Discussion continued between the builders, city officials and the Building
Commissioners regarding construction standards insofar as the integrity of
flooring, trusses being 16" rather than 19-1/4" centers, parallel cord trusses, and
other alternatives to the current standards.
Dan Olsem asked whether the city had a variance process. Raoul indicated that
any request for variance of construction is looked at in a formal process with the
Commission which will look at all options. Raoul also indicated that there already
is an appeal process with the Commission set up in the code.
A question was posed to Steve Bone about his plan review process and if he would
approve different options for different plans and Steve responded that all plans
would be treated the same and that he would set up a chart with all the required
specifications. Raoul indicated that the changes would be across the board for
everyone, that there would be one baseline to work from. However, the city
would be open to look at special requests since there might be three ways to meet a
code requirement and, if a builder produces something that meets the code's
intent, the city will allow it. Dave Decker indicated that times change and things
rb- won't be done the same as they were twenty years ago and that new materials
come along all of the time.
Since time was running out, Raoul asked the Commission and visitors if the
discussion could be tabled at this point for further research and come back at a
later date with more gathered detailed information to bring to the table. Everyone
agreed that this meeting provided a good discussion of the matter and now
everyone has a better understanding of what needs to get sorted out.
Before adjournment, it was agreed that the Commission would meet on
Wednesday,February 24, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., in order to continue its discussion
from the original agenda that was tabled for the sprinkler discussion, and then
would meet again on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., to continue the
residential sprinkler system discussion at which time all of the builders are again
welcome to come back with their research for further discussion. Raoul indicated
that he would send an e-mail reminder of the meeting about a week prior. Raoul
again reminded the builders to leave their cards so they could receive an e-mail
reminder about the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business discussed at this meeting.
r
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Steve Silva to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m., and
seconded by Chuck Kellenberger. The motion passed unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
ar dra L. Kolba
Acting Secretary
A o-ti-f eP a -a y-/O
r
r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
February 24, 2010
3:00 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 24,
2010 in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court,
Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
r2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Review/Discuss changes to I.R.C. and amendments (not to include fire
sprinklers and separation issues).
4. New Business
5. Adjournment
r
�... BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday,February 24,2010, 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens;Joseph Nickels; Dick Sinnett; and Steve
Silva.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Lohbauer;Chuck Kellenberger; and Dave Teas.
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; and Sandra
Kolba.
BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders.
CALL TO ORDER:
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: 1) 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.
REVIEW/DISCUSS 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 8502.2.2.1 - 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 R613 - 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,AS ndra L. Kolba
Acting Secretary
Date: Y---f /U
r
r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
March 10, 2010
3:00 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 10,
2010 in the 2nd Floor North Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court,
Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor North Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Review/Discuss changes to I.R.C., fire sprinkler requirements and fire
separations.
4. New Business
5. Adjournment
r
. .
r BUILDING 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
r
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.
r
a.
REVIEW/DISCUSS 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.
r
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.
r
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
, .
r 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
rfuture, 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
r 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,
1... •A &Ai&.i ,
S. dra L. Kolba
Acting Secretary
Date: '1 1- 10
r
r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
April 8, 2010
3:00 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 8, 2010 in
the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Review/Discuss changes to I.R.C., fire sprinkler requirements and fire
separations.
4. Distribute 2009 International Building Code books and list of changes to be
reviewed/discussed.
5. New Business
6. Adjournment
f , _
.
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday, April 8, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens;Steve Silva; Dave Teas; and Chuck
Kellenberger.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Sinnett;Joe Nickels; and Tom Lohbauer.
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; Ron
Sessions; and Sandra Kolba
BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders
Anastacia Hennessey, Crown Community
Development
Jennifer Cowan, Crown Community Development
Dan Olsem, Crown Community Development
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 3:15 p.m., in the 2nd Floor
South Tower Conference Room.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of both the February 24, 2010, and March 10, 2010, meetings were
presented. A motion was made by Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Dave
Teas to approve both minutes and both were unanimously approved.
REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO I.R.C.,FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS •
AND FIRE SEPARATIONS:
Raoul Johnston indicated that he had finally received the information regarding
the costs of residential sprinkler systems from Pulte. The information was based
upon a Pulte community where they are currently installing those sprinkler
systems. The costs were as follows:
r
1
1 Story Single Family Homes:
2,051 sq. ft. $6,775.00
2 Story Single Family Homes:
2,267 sq. ft. $5,950.00
2,679 sq. ft. $6,700.00
3,302 sq. ft. $7,240.00
Also included in the information from Pulte was the cost of increasing the water
service taps from 1" to 1-1/2", including the cost of installation, calculated at an
additional $5.00 per linear foot.
Raoul indicated that, after reviewing all of the materials he had regarding the
adoption of the residential sprinkler code, as well as discussions with the
inspection staff and management, city staff proposes amending out the residential
sprinkler requirements of the 2009 I.R.C. but with trade-offs such as: 1) if TJIs
installed, must be at 16" centers rather than 19.2" centers; 2) if dimensional lumber
used, must be 16" centers; 3) if open web trusses used in basements, it must be
protected by drywall; and 4) fire separation on townhouses and duplexes will
continue to use 2006 code of 2-hour separation.
Raoul believed that the new code was cost-prohibitive and would cause a negative
impact on housing. He indicated that he had listened to comments from the fire
department staff as well as the development community and knew that a good
balance had to be found which would include the additional safety scenarios
needed by the fire department without causing a major impact on the housing
industry. Mark Stefani and Jennifer Cowan indicated that it was their opinions
that the building community will support Raoul's recommendation. Raoul added
that the city is not prohibiting the use of sprinklers but, rather, not mandating it.
Raoul added that, as far as any new future developments are concerned, the city
will be proactive and push for 1-1/2" taps for the future sprinkler system
requirements.
Pat wondered why the requirement would be 1-1/2" rather than 1-1/4" taps and
Raoul indicated that 1-1/2" taps would be adequate to provide water service to
any size house. Raoul also indicated that, as it stands now, the plumbing code is
based on using 100% of plumbing fixtures at one time and there is a push to try to
change the requirement to the use of 60% of fixtures at one time as there is never a
time when 100% of plumbing fixtures are being used at the same time.
2
Dave Teas asked if dual (or double) check valves could be used in place of RPZ
valves and Raoul indicated that the city would let them use double check valves
since there is no requirement for an annual certification on those as there is with
RPZ valves.
Raoul reiterated that it was the recommendation of city staff to the Commission to
accept or modify the city's recommendation but that it was up to the Building
Commission to debate the issue. Raoul added that the residential sprinkler code
will definitely be revisited in 2012. Pat asked Raoul if the city will be putting the
changes to the code in writing and Raoul indicated that he will bring forth a draft
of the changes to the next Building Commission meeting for its approval and final
vote.
NEW BUSINESS:
Raoul indicated that there were a couple other recommended changes that he
wanted to bring forth to the Commission. He indicated that Appendix J in the
International Residential Code,Sections AJ501.7 and AJ601.4, referring to ceiling
height, was in conflict with the International Property Maintenance Code,Section
404.3. It was his recommendation that the two sections in the I.R.C. be changed to
be in conformance with Section 404.3 in the I.P.M.C., specifically to read:
Basement rooms in one- and two-family dwellings occupied
exclusively for bathroom, laundry, study or recreation purposes,
having a ceiling height of not less than 6 feet 8 inches (2033 mm) with
not less than 6 feet 4 inches (1932 mm) of clear height under beams,
girders, ducts and similar obstructions.
Raoul passed out the new 2009 I.B.C. books to the members of the Commission for
their review before the next meeting. No future meeting date was set at this
meeting but Raoul indicated that he would e-mail all the necessary information to
the members before the next meeting would be scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Steve Silva to adjourn the meeting at 3:40 p.m., and
seconded by Dave Teas. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was
adjourned.
3
Respectfully submitted,
)16049`4, IJ
S n ra L. Kolb
Acting Secretary
Date: '— aS_ (0
r
r
4
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
August 25, 2010
2:30 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 25,
2010 in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court,
Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.B.C.
4. Distribute 2009 International Fire Code books and list of changes to be
reviewed/discussed.
5. New Business
6. Adjournment
r
•
a �
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens;Steve Silva; Dave Teas; Chuck
Kellenberger; Tom Lohbauer; and Dick Sinnett, .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Nickels.
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; Ron
Sessions; and Sandra Kolba
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:40 p.m., in the 2nd Floor
South Tower Conference Room.
r
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 8, 2010, meeting was presented. A motion was made by
Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Dave Teas to approve the minutes and the
minutes of that meeting was unanimously approved.
REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO 2009 I.B.C:
Section 310.1; Classification of Residential Uses (R-2 live/work units): Raoul
Johnston indicated that this was new to the code, referring to a building that
would have a commercial unit on the first floor and a residential unit on the
second floor. Raoul suggested that this section be deleted as it is already covered
in the Zoning Ordinance and is only allowed in certain areas of Elgin, i.e.,
downtown, and that any other area that wanted this classification would have to
go through a public hearing/variance process. Steve Silva asked what the
construction regulations would be on a classification such as this, commercial or
residential and Raoul indicated that it was a combination of both. Steve also asked
if there was a separation between the live/work unit and Raoul said that the units
could be side-by-side or upper/lower. Raoul indicated that this Section does not
1
C get into the construction. Tom Lohbauer said that this would go through the
Zoning Code, which is more restrictive, and then the IBC picks up.
After further 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 403.4.6 High-rise Buildings -Smoke Removal: This Section involved
smoke removal in a high rise building. Raoul indicated that this Section changed
the code by increasing the quantity of air exhausted out of the building in a high
rise situation. An option would be operating windows or panels in lieu of a
mechanical system but that would that be cost effective depending on design?
After further 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 403.6.1; High-rise Buildings - Fire Service Access Elevator: This Section
involves a fire service access elevator in a high rise building and the need for an
elevator for fire service personnel in a fire situation. Raoul said that it sounded
like a good, but expensive, idea. He also indicated that this was required in a
building over 120 feet tall, or 10 floors, and there are not too many of those in Elgin
other than the Tower Building and a few apartment buildings.
r
After further 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 403.6.2 High-rise Buildings - Occupant Evacuation Elevators: Raoul
reiterated that this Section was in line with the requirements of the previous
section regarding fire service elevators. It was agreed that more egress using
elevators in a fire situation is needed as the stairways aren't cutting it.
After further 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 408.7; Security Glazing in Group I-3 Occupancies: This Section refers to
security glazing. Ron Sessions indicated that any building in Group I, institutional
use, are all sprinklered anyway.
After further 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 410.3.5; Stage Proscenium Curtains: This Section refers to a fire rated
curtain and/or water curtain.
2
After further 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 419; Live/Work Units: This Section refers to the Live/Work Units as per
earlier discussion. Raoul indicated that he will have to coordinate this Section
with the Zoning Ordinance.
After further discussion, it was agreed that more research would needed to be
done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to revisit
this issue at the next scheduled meeting.
Section 420.2; Separation Walls; and Section 420.3; Horizontal Separation: This
Section refers to the separation of dwelling and sleeping units. Raoul believed it
was a good life-safety issue when it comes to hotels, dormitories, etc.
After further 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 503; Allowable Building Height: This Section involves the change in
building height and area limitations. Raoul pointed out the new table showing the
changes in the number of stories in specific classifications. He indicated that there
was no change in the square footage but just reducing the number of stories.
Raoul indicated that the net impact this Section would have on the city would be
that it couldn't build five-story buildings and asked if we want to keep four stories
with sprinklers per code? He suggested that this Section be amended to allow
Type B to be four stories because sprinklers are already required and, if
sprinklered, can go five stories.
After further discussion, it was agreed to amend this Section to continue to use the
old Table 503 allowing a four-story building with sprinklers and with a one-story
increase due to the sprinkler system increase; all present agreed.
Section 507.6; Group A-3 Buildings of Type II Construction; and Section 507.7;
Group A-3 Buildings of Type III and IV Construction:
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 508.2.5; Incidental Accessory Occupancies: This Section involves the
Separation of Incidental Accessory Occupancies. Raoul indicated that this includes
more hazardous-type rooms such as furnace rooms and other unsupervised
3
rooms. Ron Sessions believed that this Section should be standard across the
board.
After further 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 508.4; Group I-2 Separated Occupancies: This Section involves Separated
Occupancies.
After further 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 509.2; Horizontal Separation of Buildings: This Section involves
Horizontal Building Separation Allowance. Raoul indicated that this Section
involves a lot of life-safety changes and didn't think anything should be changed
and the Section basically gives the ability to separate two buildings, both
horizontally and vertically, with firewalls, with or without sprinklers.
After further 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 509.5; Group R-1 nd R-2 Buildings of Type IIIA Construction; and Section
509.6; Group R-1 and R-2 Buildings of Type IIA Construction:
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 603.1; Allowable Materials: Steve Silva wondered if this Section was more
or less stringent than previously and Raoul reiterated a few examples of the
changes, indicating that it has more allowances but not drastic.
After further 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 703.6; Identification of Fire and Smoke Separation Walls: Dave Decker
indicated that this Section is the greatest thing and should have been done years
ago. After discussion, it was agreed that the lettering should be amended to be
increased from 1/2" to a minimum of 2" in height in an offsetting color.
After further discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section
out but that it should be amended per above, with a minimum of 2" lettering in an
offsetting color; all present agreed.
4
"""' Section 704.9; Impact Protection for Fire Protective Coverings: All agreed that this
Section was good. However, Dave Decker believed that the height should be
increased from 5' to 8' or the ceiling, whichever is higher.
After further discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section
out but that it should be amended per above, with the height changed from 5' to 8
or the ceiling, whichever is higher; all present agreed.
Section 705.5; Fire-Resistance Ratings of Exterior Walls: Dick Sinnett wondered
what exactly was changed and Raoul indicated that the separation was changed
from 5' to 10'.
After further 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 707.3.9; Separation of Fire Areas:
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 708.14.1; Elevator Lobby Protection: Ron Sessions that all levels, other than
rthe first floor as it is the exit out of the building, should have a separation. This
separation will keep smoke separate from other floors.
After further 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 712.09;Smoke Barriers; and Section 407.4.3;Horizontal Assemblies:
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 714.4.1; Exterior Wall/Floor Intersection: Dave Decker indicated that this
was just common sense for keeping smoke and gas from coming through ceilings.
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 716.5.6; Protection of Air Openings in Rated Exterior Walls: Raoul
indicated that the change to this Section was the addition of a fire damper if a duct
was on an exterior wall.
C
5
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 902.1; Definition of Fire Area: Raoul indicated that this Section added
certain areas such as a garden with a roof but no exterior walls.
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 903.2.7; Sprinkler Systems in Group M Furniture Stores: Raoul indicated
that this Section involves any store that sells upholstered furniture would need a
sprinkler system. Discussion ensued regarding what exactly would that mean?
Would that include a resale shop that sold an occasional piece of upholstered
furniture, for example?
After further discussion, it was agreed that more research would needed to be
done before making a decision on this issue and the Committee agreed to revisit
this issue at the next scheduled meeting.
Section 903.2.10;Sprinklers in Group S-2 Enclosed Parking Garages:
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 903.2.11.1; Stories Without Adequate Exterior Openings:
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 903.3.1.2.1;Sprinkler Protection of Residential Balconies and Decks: Raoul
indicated that the change basically requires wood balconies or decks with roofs
above them must be sprinklered.
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 903.3.1.3; NFPA 13D Sprinklered Systems: Raoul indicated that this
Section was amended out of the Residential Code so it doesn't need to be changed
from this code.
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.
6
Section 906;Portable Fire Extinguishers:
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 913; Fire Pumps; and Section 913.2.1; Protection of Fire Pump Rooms:
Raoul indicated that 2-hour fire barriers and 2-hour horizontal assemblies was
added.
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 914; Emergency Responder Safety Features: Raoul indicated that this
Section is all new and is a good addition to the Code.
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.
The Committee ran out of time to continue with the changes to the IBC and it was
agreed that it would be continued at the next scheduled meeting.
DISTRIBUTE 2009 I.F.C. BOOKS AND LIST OF CHANGES TO BE
REVIEWED/DISCUSSED:
Raoul handed out the new IFC books as well as five handouts which will make the
review of the new IFC books more manageable and easier to go through the code
books. He indicated that Chapters 9 and 10 overlap with the IBC and are almost
identical with some minor differences.
Raoul indicated that, if anyone has any questions while going through the code
book, they should feel free to call him at any time and not to wait until the
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
There was no new business to discuss at this meeting.
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Building Commission would be held on
Thursday, September 16, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., and the agenda for that meeting as
well as the minutes from this meeting, will be sent prior to the meeting.
7
r
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,
ndra L. Kolb,
Acting Secretary
fir► Date: /0--„1/-10
r
8
r
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
September 16, 2010
2:30 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 25,
2010 in the 1St Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd
Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Continue to Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.B.C.
4.New Business
5. Adjournment
r
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Thursday, September 16, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Tom Lohbauer; and Dick Sinnett, .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Silva; Dave Teas;Joe Nickels; and Chuck
Kellenberger.
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Ron Sessions; and Sandra Kolba
DUE TO A LACK OF QUORUM THE MEETING WAS CANCELLED.
Respectfully submitted,
r
dra L. Kolba
A cting Secretary
Date: Li _
r
1
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
October 21, 2010
2:30 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 21, 2010
in the 211d Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Continue to Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.B.C.
4.New Business
5. Adjournment
BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, October 21, 2010, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Chuck Kellenberger; Tom
Lohbauer; and Dick Sinnett, .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Teas and Joe Nickels.
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Dave Decker; Steve Bone; and Sandra
Kolba
VISITORS: Vince Cuchetto, Code Enforcement Manager, and Marc
Mylott, Director of Community Development
CALL TO ORDER:
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
1
Residential Code (with Commentary); 3) Section R305, 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 7', 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. Vince'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 left 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.
r
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 6'8" 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/DISCUSS 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.
3
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.
r
Section 1009.14; 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:
r 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.
4
r 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
rbefore 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
rand revisit it at a future meeting.
5
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 (EIFS):
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.
6
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 1614; 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
7
�^ 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,
hi
VIA / c�
.ndra L. Kolba
Acting Secretary
Date: //— 9 (O
r
8
Notice of Meeting
Building Commission's Meeting
November 9, 2010
2:30 P.M.
The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2010
in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin.
Agenda
Building Commission's Meeting
2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall
150 Dexter Court, Elgin
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
3. Continue to Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.B.C.
4.New Business
5. Adjournment
r
elk BUILDING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer; Dick Sinnet;
Dave Teas and Joe Nickels
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Kellenberger
STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Ron Sessions and Sandra Kolba
VISITORS: 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
rih CALL TO ORDER:
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.
1
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 25th 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 25th 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
3
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 Fl 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
4
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 Integrity of High 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.
5
rSection 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.
r 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
6
r 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
r 46, with the latter probably needing the most discussion. He indicated that he
would send the notice for that meeting in a timely manner.
7
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)/0//4/1 , / ,
ra L. Kolba
Acting Secretary
Date: 1/
I
r
8