Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Building Commission Minutes & Agendas Notice of Meeting Building Commission's Meeting February 22, 2011 2:00 P.M. The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 22, 2011 in the 2❑d 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.F.C. 4.New Business 5. Adjournment r BUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 22,2011, 2010, 2:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer and Joe Nickels MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Kellenberger; Dave Teas and Dick Sinnet STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Marc Mylott, Dave Decker; Steve Bone; Gary Line; Ron Sessions; Chief John Fahy and Sandra Kolba VISITORS: Dave Ryan, Walker Parking (possible replacement for the retiring Joe Nickels) CALL TO ORDER: rThe meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:03 p.m., in the 2nd Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the November 9, 2010, meeting were presented. A motion was made by Joe Nickels and seconded by Tom Lohbauer to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. Before the meeting started, Raoul Johnston introduced Fire Chief John Fahy to the members of the Commission and the staff. All attendees introduced themselves to the Chief as well. Raoul indicated that this is the first time that the Building Commission will be reviewing the Fire Code. Raoul had handed out the I.F.C. books at the last meeting and asked the attendees if, upon their review, there may be something that they would need direction on? Joe Nickels asked if staff had made any recommendations yet and Raoul indicated that it had not yet made any recommendations. 1 REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE 2009 I.F.C. CHAPTER 1: Raoul indicated that this was basically administrative and that there are no drastic changes,just minor modifications. Currently, the Code shows a Fire Code Official (who does the inspections) and a Building Code Official (who applies the codes) but the city's legal department indicated that it should be blanketed into one name, Code Official. Raoul also indicated that the changes in this Chapter coincides with the changes in the Building Code. CHAPTER 2: Raoul indicated that this chapter covers the definitions and that there are no changes to discuss. He also indicated that most of the definitions are the same as in the Building Code. CHAPTER 3: Section 303.5 -Fire Extinguishers: Although this Section was included in the cheat sheet that Raoul had prepared, he indicated that this section refers to where fire extinguishers should be placed in and around asphalt kettles. He asked Ron Sessions if he had any comments regarding this Section and Ron indicated that he did not. Pat Hudgens asked if the meeting was going to follow the cheat sheet and, if so, this was not up for discussion or change and did not need to be discussed. All agreed. Section 311.5 - Placards for Unsafe Buildings (2006): Raoul indicated that this Section was added to give the ability to the Battalion Chief at a fire situation the same function that a code official would have to placard an unsafe building. The Chief indicated that it would also give the fire department the ability to placard an unsafe building found at a regular inspection. Marc Mylott reminded all that the standards for placarding used by the fire department should follow the same standards used by the Code Department for such things as ceiling heights, etc. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that there was no need to take this Section out or make any changes to it and it will be left as is; all present agreed. Section 315.3.1 -Storage Beneath Overhead Projections from Buildings (2009): No discussion was had on this Section. 2 CHAPTER 4: Section 403.3 - Crowd Management (2009): No discussion was had on this Section. Section 404.2- Fire Safety and Evacuation Plans for Group B and Group R-2 (2006): This Section discusses plans for different types of occupancy. The Section changed a little bit from last cycle, but nothing unusual. Raoul indicated that it was easily discernable and easily enforceable and Ron Sessions agreed that it was good. Section 404.3.3 - Lockdown Plans (2009): No discussion was had on this Section. CHAPTER 5: Section 503.5 - Appendix D Section 103.5, Required Gates or Barricades (2009): No discussion was had on this Section. Section 505.1 - Address Identification (2009): This section indicates that address identification should be 4" but, in all the other Codes already discussed, the requirement is 5" numbers. It was agreed that this Section should be amended to increase the size of the numbers from 4" to 5". All present agreed. The Chief indicated that the size and location of the identification numbers are a problem mainly for ambulance responses. Dave Decker indicated that identification numbers are a real problem in the Historic Districts. Pat Hudgens suggested that somehow the community should be made aware of the problem with size and location of house numbers and Marc suggested that this concern could be addressed on the Public Access Channel on its "Did You Know?" segment. Section 504.3 -Stairway Access to Roof: Although this Section was included in the cheat sheet that Raoul had prepared, he indicated that it had changed in a good way for the fire department. Steve Silva indicated that he had run into a situation in Aurora where there was a budget issue involved and he worked with the city and the builder to allow a ship-ladder type of staircase with an oversize access devise to be used in place of an actual stairway and wondered if the City of Elgin would be open to considering that type of device. Ron Sessions indicated that it was okay with the fire department. Joe Nickels indicated that it might interfere with the building height obstruction issue. r 3 rIt was agreed that,before the Committee could make a decision on this Section, additional research would need to be done by staff, at which time staff could make a recommendation for specific verbiage. The Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. Section 510, Appendix I, Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (2009): Raoul indicated that this Section was not in the 2006 Code and was installed into the I.F.C. in 2009 regarding signal strength in buildings. The Chief indicated that anything new regarding this Section is good if added to the Code. Raoul indicated that it will also be adopted in Appendix J. CHAPTER 6: Section 603.4.2- Portable Outdoor Gas-Fired Heating Appliances (2009): This is a new Section covering rare occurrences where there would be a portable outdoor gas-fired heating devices on places such as patios in restaurants and bars for example. It was agreed that it was a good Section allowing the control of the location of these devices around people and exits. The Chief indicated that he felt that this was a good addition to the Code. Section 606.8, 606.9.1 - Refrigerant Detection and Refrigeration System Emergency Shutoff (2009): This is also a new Section and is a bonus for emergency personnel and employees in facilities where refrigeration is used, such as SanFillipo. All agreed. Section 608 - Stationary Storage Battery Systems 2009): Raoul indicated that there were several changes in this Section, all good and going in the right direction since wind and solar power will create the need for the use of batteries to store the power. Marc asked if this Section covers residential homes with solar panels and a battery system that would store that power and if so, were there some guidelines for that in this code? Raoul indicated that this code only took into consideration Commercial uses. Dave Decker indicated that there are no guidelines nor is it addressed in the I.R.C. Discussion ensued regarding the future use of solar and wind power and the need for battery storage of that power, how it would be identified in emergency situations, etc. It was agreed that,before the Committee could make a decision on this Section, additional research would need to be done by staff, at which time staff could make a recommendation for specific verbiage. The Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. r 4 rbs Section 609.3, 904.11.6 - Commercial Kitchen Hoods -Operation and Maintenance (2009): This is also new in the code and all agreed that it is a good addition for the prevention of grease hood fires since inspections will be done on a more frequent basis. CHAPTER 9: Raoul prepared two handouts: 1) 2009 Fire Sprinkler Requirements; and 2) 2009 Fire Alarm Requirements. The Commission and Staff went through each item individually and commented accordingly. RE: Fire Sprinkler Requirements: After discussion, all code requirements for Use Groups A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, E, F-1, F-2, H, I, M, R, S-1 and S-2 will remain as is. RE: Fire Alarm Requirements: After discussion, all code requirements for Use Groups E, H and I will remain as is. However, after discussion, the code requirements for Use Groups A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, F-1, F-2, M, R, S-1 and S-2 will be amended to reflect alarms being required at 1,500 sq. ft. of tenant or building space. There was a continued discussion on the ramifications of changes in occupancies and the subsequent need for changes in the monitoring systems. Section 903.3.1.2.1 - Balconies and Decks - Automatic Fire Sprinkler Installation Requirements (2006): This Section requires sprinkler protection be provided for exterior balconies and decks and ground floor patios with roofs of dwelling units. Raoul indicated that only one developer who has wood decks has complained about this code. Also, most homeowners' associations are enforcing this code. All agreed that this was a good addition to the code. Section 903.6.2, 4603.4.2 -Group 1-2 Occupancies (2009): Raoul indicated that this code was added for occupants who are not capable of self-preservation. All agreed that it is a good addition to the code. Section 904.11.5.1 - Portable Fire Extinguishers for Solid-Fuel Cooking Appliances (2006): This section is added for places such as restaurants with wood grilling be required to have a fire extinguisher. Although this code will require more work for the inspectors, it was agreed that this was a good addition to the code. 5 Section 904.11.5.2-Class K Portable Fire Extinguishers for Deep-Fat Fryers (2006): It was agreed that this is a good addition to the code since the newer oils,without the trans fat, that are being used burn hotter so the need for this additional protection is warranted. Section 907 - Fire Alarm and Detection Systems: All discussion on this section was done when Fire Alarm Requirement handout was discussed earlier in the meeting. Section 910.1 - Smoke and Heat Vents for ESFR Sprinklers (2006): Raoul indicated that this was reviewed by the Commission when the I.B.C. was reviewed. Raoul read an excerpt from Codes and Standards by Kelly P. Reynolds and Associates, Inc. regarding a reader's question asking why the 400' travel distance for Groups Fl and S1 with fire sprinklers and roof vents were eliminated in the 2009 I.B.C.? The response was "A current lack of comprehensive understanding on the interaction between fire vents and fire sprinklers is the reason. Vents release smoke, heat and toxic gases. Premature smoke and heat vent activation was found in some tests to cause an excessive number of fire sprinklers to discharge. That condition may lead to the sprinkler system being overpowered by the demand. For now, the travel distance for F-1 and S-1 uses 250 ft. with fire sprinklers and 200 ft. without. No credit for roof vents." There was a suggestion to amend the code to have manual activation to be activated at the scene by the fire department. The Chief indicated that the fire department would not use that method until the fire was mitigated so it was not practical to put that constraint on the builder. Steve Silva asked whether a building that has a 400' compliance, if taken out, would it then be non-compliant and Ron Sessions thought that it would then be considered existing non- conforming and then apply to the previous code. Discussion continued regarding smoke venting and the 400' travel distance pros and cons and the actual logistics as to how the system works and how it may create a bigger problem with fires and sprinkler usages over the area. It was agreed that, before the Committee could make a decision on this Section, additional research would need to be done by staff,whereas they could put together a scenario. The Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting and decide whether there should be some amendment to look at each project individually. r 6 CHAPTER 10: Section 1003.2 -Minimum Ceiling Heights (2006): Raoul indicated that this code is specifically for Commercial/Industrial with minimum ceiling heights at 7'6". He indicated that, generally, ceiling heights in those types of buildings are usually higher than that minimum, sometimes 8', 9' and as high as 10'. Marc wanted to make sure that this didn't interfere with the ceiling height restrictions in the I.R.C. and the I.P.M.C. It was agreed that there was no more need for discussion on this section as it was good as written. Section 1005.1 - Minimum Required Egress Width (2009): After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. The time allotted for this meeting expired and it was agreed that discussion would continue on the balance of the itemized Sections at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: No new business was discussed. r ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Joe Nickels to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 p.m., and seconded by Tom Lohbauer. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, iiiii VAPAtli tiii 1 `.Odra L. Kolba Acting Secretary Date: / A54 I r ilik F 7 Notice of Meeting Building Commission's Meeting March 23, 2011 2:30 P.M. The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2011 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 the 2009 I.F.C. 4.New Business 5. Adjournment r BUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 23, 2011,2010,2:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer, Dick Sinnet and Joe Nickels MEMBERS ABSENT: Chuck Kellenberger and Dave Teas. STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Marc Mylott, Dave Decker;Steve Bone; Gary Line; Ron Sessions; Chief John Fahy and Sandra Kolba VISITORS: Dave Ryan, Walker Parking (replacement for the retiring Joe Nickels as of next meeting) CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:37 p.m., in the 1st Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the February 22, 2011, meeting was presented. A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer and seconded by Steve Silva to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. Prior to the continuation of the discussion of the 2009 International Fire Code, Pat Hudgens indicated that there were some questions raised by members of the Commission regarding Chapter 9 and, specifically, the last meeting's discussion and agreement to decrease the requirement of the square footage to 1,500 sq. ft. He indicated that he got an e-mail from Steve Silva posing several questions regarding the suggested reduction and wondering why the Commission should reduce the area when the code required larger areas and his concern was with the cost involved to reduce the area. Raoul Johnston indicated that he had discussed some of the questions with Ron Sessions regarding this Chapter. Ron agreed that there is an issue regarding the cost effectiveness. He indicated that the concern was with buildings such as strip malls with demising walls making the areas 1 under 1,500 sq. ft. Raoul indicated that the type of occupancy was also an important factor in measuring the level of the hazard in an existing building. Dave Decker indicated that existing buildings would not be grandfathered in with this code. Ron suggested that changes should be made with a change of occupancy use not tenant. It was agreed by all the members that it should be enforced upon a change of"use." Discussion then turned to the alarm panel and that some buildings over 1,500 sq. ft. tie into one panel. Rori s concern was, i.e., a strip mall with one panel and, if there is a change of use within that strip mall where the change of use would require a fire alarm, that unit would have to put in its own panel and, eventually, every unit would end up having its own panel. Steve Bone indicated that the problem with one panel is sharing it and getting access to it. The Chief had one example in the new indoor mall at 1600 Big Timber Road which has one common panel with all tenants tied to it. Another example was the Sears/Elgin Fresh Market on Summit Street. The panel is in the basement of Sears and when a sprinkler head went off at the Elgin Fresh Market, the Fire Department had to get into the basement of Sears to stop the sprinkler in the Elgin Fresh Market. Pat Hudgens indicated that he could see the use of the 1,500 sq. ft. restriction in a restaurant but, otherwise, it seemed a bit restrictive in his opinion. Steve indicated that most people want to do the right thing when it comes to fire alarms and sprinklers but at the lowest cost. Raoul indicated that the I.S.O. gives points if the code is more restrictive. Ron indicated that the figure of 1,500 sq. ft. was picked across the board for ease but agreed that, based on the usage of the building, it could be changed. Pat suggested that this discussion be continued at a later meeting after staff had a chance to look at using "use groups." Pat asked staff to meet and come up with some compromised thresholds for the different use groups. Pat indicated that he would share Steve's e-mail with Raoul and Raoul agreed that he would come up with some additional information at the next meeting after doing further research on this subject. REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE 2009 I.F.C. (CONTINUED): CHAPTER 3 (Continued): Section 315.3.1 - Storage Beneath Overhead Projections from Buildings (2009): After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. 2 CHAPTER 4: Section 403.3 -Crowd Management (2009): Ron indicated that training was the most important aspect to this Section. He said that he thinks it is a good section and the Chief agreed that it was a good tool. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 404.3.3 - Lockdown Plans (2009): This Section was similar to the previous Section discussed. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. CHAPTER 5: Section 503.5 - Appendix D Section 103.5, Required Gates or Barricades (2009): An example of this gate is the one at the entrance to the Edgewater subdivision where an ambulance or fire truck siren would regulate the opening of the gate. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 504.3 - Stairway Access to Roof: This item was tabled from the meeting of February 22, 2011 and was reopened at this meeting. Raoul said that he had looked at this section and realized that the Section that they referred to, 109.12 did not make any sense, and realized that it meant to say 109.13. Raoul indicated that it is not an issue with him and it is not detrimental because it gives an option to use a full stairway unless the roof is occupied (i.e., roof garden, observation deck, sports facilities, etc.) at which time a full stairway would be required. All agreed that this was a good addition to the code. CHAPTER 6: Section 608 - Stationary Storage Battery Systems 2009): This item was tabled from the meeting of February 22, 2011 and was reopened at this meeting. Raoul stated that places such as Menards and Lowes are offering items such as wind turbines, etc. for sale in its' sales fliers so, although items such as that is not currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Elgin, eventually it is something that will have to be discussed. Raoul indicated that this topic should not be alarming when it is not completely clear in the Fire code because it is discussed adequately in the 2011 NEC in Article 480 as well as Articles 690, 694 and 702. Raoul indicated that, simultaneously with the review of the Fire Code, the Electrical Commission is currently reviewing the 2011 NEC and it will be included in this code cycle. All agreed that it should remain as is in this Code. 3 CHAPTER 9: Section 910.1 - Smoke and Heat Vents for ESFR Sprinklers (2006): This item was tabled from the meeting of February 22, 2011 and was reopened at this meeting. Raoul indicated that he still needed to do further research and obtain further information on this Section before bringing any credible information to the Commission for further discussion. This topic was continued to be tabled until the next scheduled meeting. CHAPTER 10: Sections 1007.3 and 1007.4 - Required Areas of Refuge (2009): After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Sections 1007.6.3 and 1007.8 - Two-Way Communications (2009): The Chief indicated that this was an ADA requirement and Pat agreed that these Sections made sense. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1008.1.9 - Panic and Fire Exit Hardware (2006): Raoul indicated that Groups A and E were reduced from 100 occupants to 50 occupants. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1008.1.9.8 - Electromagnetically Locked Egress Doors (2009): Ron indicated that this sometimes is a problem with the fire alarms as the doors unlock when the alarms go off and then, when reset, relock the building. Raoul said that he would amend to include unlock activation of alarm. After brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section would be amended accordingly. Section 1009.6.3 - Enclosed Usable Space Under Stairways (2006): Raoul indicated that this section is covered in the Residential Code. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1014.2 - Egress Through Intervening Spaces (2006): Raoul indicated that it was modified to make clearer the lineage in access aisles to keep the passageways clear. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1014.2.1 - Egress Through Adjacent Tenant Spaces (2006): Raoul indicated that changes to this Section were similar to those in Section 1014.2. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. 4 Section 1015.2.2 - Egress Separation of Three or More Exits (2006): Raoul indicated that it deleted a part of the separation of doors in that, if there were three or more doors, they would need to be an equal distance apart. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1016.2 - Travel Distance Increase for Roof Vents (2009): It was agreed by the members of the Commission to do some more research on this Section and it was therefore tabled for further discussion at the next scheduled meeting. Section 1020.1 - Unenclosed Interior Exit Stairways (2006): Raoul indicated that there was a modification to this Section in that it limits where stairs can be and the occupant load of the stairs. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1024 - Luminous Egress Path Markings (2009): Raoul explained that this Section was added for use in high rise buildings, such as the Tower Building, etc., requiring glow-in-the-dark type luminous strips to be added as emergency lighting on all new and existing stairwells. Ron thought it was a good idea. Dave Decker wondered what the costs would entail. Further discussion ensued regarding whether this Section: 1) would entail only new and not existing buildings; 2) how long the strips would last and how often they would have to be replaced; 3) whether they would be seen when there is smoke; 4) whether there would be different standards for different types of occupancies, i.e., whether there was sleeping in the building, number of people occupying the building, etc. After this discussion, it was agreed by all members of the Commission that this Section was obnoxiously burdensome and it was agreed to delete the entire Section and would be amended out accordingly. Section 1028.4 - Exit Signs - Maintenance (2006): Raoul indicated that this was an addition to the 2006 code requiring that the signs be maintained in existing buildings as they would be in new buildings. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 1028.7- Testing and Maintenance - Communications Systems for Areas of Refuge (2006): This Section is similar to Section 1028.4. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. CHAPTER 15: Sections 1507.2 and 1507.3 - Electrostatic Apparatus (2009): 5 Ron indicated that these Sections are being addressed in the 2011 NEC. Tom indicated that this was addressing spray painting applications and was well- covered from an electric wiring standpoint. Ron indicated that there was no issue with the Fire Department and agreed that any discussion should be had within the Electrical Commission's discussion of the 2011 NEC. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. CHAPTER 23: Section 2305.6 - Designation of Storage Heights (2009): Ron summarized this Section by indicating that, once stock is put into racks that are too high to the ceiling, it changes the sprinkler design functions. He also indicated that, when a new occupancy goes into a building, that occupancy may need a new sprinkler design. The Chief agreed that this was a good addition to the Code and thought that it would be somewhat inexpensive. Raoul suggested that verbiage, i.e., "Do Not Store Over Line," be required around the perimeter of the room and/or columns. The Code indicates that it is up to the code official. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written as "where required." CHAPTER 27: (Pik Section 2701.5.1 and Appendix H - Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory Statement (2009): Ron indicated that he had to send a Tier 2 report anyway regarding the emergency response plan. Mainly this Section had language changes. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. CHAPTER 34: Section 3404.2.9.1 - Existing Noncompliant Installations (2009): Raoul indicated that this would entail above-ground tanks which the City does have a few in the Bluff City Blvd. and Bartlett Road areas to the far south. Ron indicated that it was the same language as the State uses, i.e.,be compliant or remove. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. Section 3404.2.15 - Maintenance of Aboveground Storage Tanks (2009): All agreed that this was the basically discussed in the previous Section. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. CHAPTER 40: Section 4006 - Liquid (Cryogenic) Oxygen in Home Health Care (2009): 6 Ron believed that identification on the building itself is needed so EMS know right away what they are up against. It was also agreed that Home Health Care providers need to be notified of this code requirement. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this Section is good as written. There was a break in the discussion of the Code when Mayor Schock entered the conference room to present Certificates of Appreciation to retiring Building Commission member Joseph Nickels for his 17 years of service. All members applauded and thanked Joe for everything he has done for the City and the Commission. CHAPTER 46 - Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings (2009): Raoul indicated that this was an entirely new Chapter to this Code, a lot of which information was unrealistic but did incorporate some additional requirements between the Fire and Building Departments which would need to be enforced. Pat believed that this Chapter was similar in nature to the Property Maintenance Code. Joe wondered if this Chapter incorporated changes and alterations to existing buildings and, if they don't comply, would they have to make alterations or, if making alterations, then they have to be up to code? Raoul indicated that, when permits were applied for, new and more changes would be required. The Chief believed that, after his reading of this Chapter, everything within this Chapter has already been previously discussed in the Code book but was basically consolidating all of the changes into one Chapter. He also believed that the Code was designed for when changes and/or alterations were being made and Dave agreed that it was meant for remodeling only. Ron suggested that this Chapter needed to be reviewed more carefully and Raoul indicated that he would create a comparative between the Fire Code and the Building Code Amendments. The Committee agreed to table this issue and revisit it at a future meeting. NEW BUSINESS: No new business was discussed. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Joe Nickels to adjourn the meeting at 4:35 p.m., and seconded by Tom Lohbauer. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. 7 C Respectfully submitted, id 1...ILJ t ra L. Kolba Acting Secretary Date: g-,77 ( l 8 l Notice of Meeting Building Commission's Meeting April 27, 2011 2:30 P.M. The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 27, 2011 in the 1st Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin. Agenda Building Commission's Meeting r` 1st Floor South Conference Room, City Hall 150 Dexter Court, Elgin 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of minutes from last meeting 3. Continue Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.F.C. 4.New Business 5. Adjournment r BUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, April 27, 2011,2010,2:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer, Chuck Kellenberger and Dave Ryan. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Sinnet and Dave Teas. STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Marc Mylott, Dave Decker and Sandra Kolba. VISITORS: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:44 p.m., in the 1st Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the March 23, 2011, meeting was e-mailed to the members prior to this meeting. Pat Hudgens indicated that a sentence should be added to paragraph 4 on page 2,which was done accordingly. The revised minutes of the March 23, 2011, meeting was then presented during this meeting. A motion was made by Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Tom Lohbauer to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE 2009 I.F.C. (CONTINUED): Staff reported that there was miscommunication regarding the scheduling of this meeting. It was agreed that this discussion would be tabled until the next meeting. CHAPTER 46 (Continued): Raoul indicated his concern as to how much of this chapter affects old to new code. This chapter refers to existing codes disbursed throughout the chapter. He 1 S indicated that the general information and definitions were all new and that 4603.1, fire safety requirements, was also all new. Table 4603.1 was also new showing section numbers and how they relate to different use groups. He indicated that, in his opinion, it was easier to understand. Otherwise, not a whole lot else was new within the chapter, and that it compiled a lot of information from the previous chapters into one chapter. Pat was wondering how many modifications from other chapters would be incorporated properly in this chapter and wanted to be sure that all of the i's are dotted and is are crossed. Raoul indicated that the Residential, Building, Mechanical and Fuel Gas Codes were complete and that he was partway through the Electric Code. He indicated that he would e-mail all the proposed amendments to the Commission members to review before the next meeting. Raoul indicated that, at the next meeting, the fire alarm issues will be hashed out. Once the Commission members approve the proposed amendments, Raoul will send them to legal for their approval before going before the City Council. CHAPTER 9 (Continued): Section 910.1-Smoke and Heat Vents for ESFR Sprinklers (2006): Steve reminded the Commission members that this Chapter also needed to be looked at again as it was tabled at the last meeting. Raoul indicated that he received documentation indicating that smoke and heat vents had adverse affect on ESFR sprinkler systems. Steve wondered if draft curtains around smoke and heat vents would collect heat and Raoul indicated that more research needed to be made on this issue. Pat wondered how they work and Steve gave an example of an open stair where the heat and smoke moves up and the smoke vents go off too soon which slows down the sprinkler system. Steve indicated that each scenario should be looked at on a case-by-case basis as new buildings come up. Raoul agreed that the premature opening of heat and smoke vents could cause the sprinkler system to be overpowered by the demand. Pat wondered about the provisions for smoke curtains and Steve indicated that he has seen them in lobbies of buildings and that they trap heat to control the sprinkler heads and that they try to prevent the heat from going to the smoke vents. Tom asked if there were different temperature ratings and Raoul indicated that there were fusable links that could be set at different temperatures. Pat wondered if the change from 250 to 400 feet travel distance is a good idea and Tom asked if 250 feet was now the maximum and wondered what actually opened the vents and Pat and Raoul indicated it was the heat. Raoul indicated that, in his opinion, it should be left out for the time being until the need arises when the City gets a larger structure building at which time they would have to provide 2 adequate documents to support the distances and then the City would take a look at it. He indicated that if the fire engineers recommended it in a new building, the City would look at it and, if it would prove workable, would be willing to approve it and work with them. He also indicated that the City is always willing to sit down and work with developers and work out a compromise with the intent of the code. Pat indicated that the fire official should agree to use the most restrictive code. Tom wondered about Table 910.3. After a short discussion about whether to take it out and comment that the fire department probably wouldn't want it, it was agreed that this needed to be looked at more carefully with the help of the fire department representatives. It looked more and more to the Commission members that this section should be taken out entirely but decided to table the item until the fire official would be at a meeting to discuss it more thoroughly. NEW BUSINESS: Raoul indicated that he was close to wrapping up all of the issues and hoped that,by the next meeting, all of the outstanding issues could be resolved. He also reiterated that he had finished working on several of the amendments and would be e-mailing them to the Commission members for them to look at before the next meeting and hoped that, at the next meeting, they could vote to approve the amendments. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer to adjourn the meeting at 3:20 p.m., and seconded by Steve Silva. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, I : /i!,i0/.1A �1 /e San. L. olba Acti g Secretary 3 j7 :awl Notice of Meeting Building Commission's Meeting May 9, 2011 2:30 P.M. The Building Commission's meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 9, 2011 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. Continue Review/Discuss changes to the 2009 I.F.C., smoke/heat vents and alarm system requirements 4.New Business 5. Adjournment r BUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, May 9, 2011,2:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Hudgens; Steve Silva; Tom Lohbauer, Dave Teas and Dave Ryan. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Sinnet and Chuck Kellenberger. STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston; Steve Bone; Marc Mylott; Ron Sessions; Chief John Fahy and Sandra Kolba. VISITORS: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Pat Hudgens at 2:35 p.m., in the 1st Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the April 27, 2011, meeting was presented. A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer and seconded by Dave Ryan to approve the minutes and the minutes of that meeting were unanimously approved. REVIEW/DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE 2009 I.F.C. (CONTINUED): Pat Hudgens indicated that discussion regarding Fire Alarms was tabled to this meeting for the Fire Department representatives input. There were two items that were tabled: 1) Section 910.1,Smoke and Heat Vents for ESFR Sprinklers and the code change from 250 to 400 feet for travel distance; and 2) Section 907, Fire Alarm and Detection Systems and the requirements based on Occupant Load and/or Square Footage. Section 910.1, Smoke and Heat Vents for ESFR Sprinklers: Raoul indicated that the requirements of this code was conflicting in certain ways and wondered if this r Section should be kept as is. Ron Sessions indicated that, if, for example, a big box store used EFSR Sprinklers, those would put a fire out and this building would not 1 need smoke vents. On older systems with high pile storage and with high density heads, those systems would contain fires but heat vents would be needed. Ron believed that each building should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Raoul indicated that it was his opinion to take out the travel distance increase but to look at the travel distances during plan review on a case-by-case basis. The Chief added that most designers of buildings should know what distance would be needed for the type of building they are designing. After discussion amongst the Commission members and Fire Officials, it was agreed that the code should remain as is. All members agreed. Section 907,Fire Alarm and Detection Systems: Pat asked the Commission members and Fire Officials if they had come to a compromise on the issue. Ron indicated the concern was Fire Alarm Notification and that this was a life safety issue. He added that the cost of the Fire Alarm Notification System would be approximately $1.00 per square foot with a white strobe (or $2.00 per square foot for a full blown monitoring system). Ron reminded all that this was for new construction only or for changes in the occupancy use group. The Commission members and Fire Officials went through the chart that Raoul had put together for each use group showing 1) current code requirement; 2) Fire Department request; and 3) 2009 Code requirement (see attached). Use Group A-1: After discussion, it was agreed that the current requirement of an occupant load of 300 and an approximate 2,100 square foot minimum was sufficient and agreed that the 2009 code requirement will remain the same as the current requirement. All agreed. Use Group A-2: After discussion, it was agreed that the current requirement of an occupant load of 300 and an approximate 2,100 to 4,500 square foot minimum was sufficient and agreed that the 2009 code requirement will remain the same as the current requirement. All agreed. Use Group A-3: After discussion, it was agreed that the current requirement of an occupant load of 300 and an approximate 1,500 square foot minimum was sufficient and agreed that the 2009 code requirement will remain the same as the current requirement. All agreed. Use Group A4: After discussion, it was agreed that the current requirement of an occupant load of 300 and an approximate 2,100 square foot minimum was sufficient and agreed that the 2009 code requirement will remain the same as the current requirement. All agreed. 2 Use Group B: After a thorough discussion on this use group, the Commission members and the Fire Officials agreed on a compromise. The current requirement as well as the 2009 Code requirement for this use group of an occupant load of 500 or 100 above or below level of discharge and an approximate 50,000 square foot minimum was agreed to be a bit loose, while the Fire Department request of 1,500 square feet was thought to be excessive, it was agreed that the compromise on this use group would be 2,100 square feet with a pull station at every required exit, smoke detectors every 900 square feet of floor area and three strobes minimum (one white strobe out front or at access to building and two horn/strobes inside building). All agreed. Use Group E: All agreed that the current requirement and the 2009 Code requirement were sufficient and no changes needed to be made. All agreed. Use Group F-1: After a thorough discussion on this use group, the Commission members and the Fire Officials agreed on a compromise. The current requirement as well as the 2009 Code requirement for this use group of 2 or more stories or 500 occupants and an approximate 50,000 square foot minimum above or below level of exit discharge was agreed to be a bit loose,while the Fire Department request of 1,500 square feet was thought to be excessive, it was agreed that the compromise on this use group would be 2,100 square feet with a pull station at every required exit, smoke detectors every 900 square feet of floor area and three strobes minimum(one white strobe out front or at access to building and two horn/strobes inside building). All agreed. Use Group F-2: After a thorough discussion on this use group, the Commission members and the Fire Officials agreed on a compromise. The current requirement as well as the 2009 Code requirement for this use group of 2 or more stories or 500 occupants and an approximate 50,000 square foot minimum above or below level of exit discharge was agreed to be a bit loose, while the Fire Department request of 1,500 square feet was thought to be excessive, it was agreed that the compromise on this use group would be 2,100 square feet with a pull station at every required exit, smoke detectors every 900 square feet of floor area and three strobes minimum (one white strobe out front or at access to building and two horn/strobes inside building). All agreed. Use Group H: All agreed that the current requirement and the 2009 Code requirement were sufficient and no changes needed to be made. All agreed. Use Group I: All agreed that the current requirement and the 2009 Code requirement were sufficient and no changes needed to be made. All agreed. r 3 Use Group M: After a thorough discussion on this use group, the Commission members and the Fire Officials agreed on a compromise. The current requirement as well as the 2009 Code requirement for this use group of an occupant load of 500 or 100 above or below level of discharge and an approximate 15,000 square foot minimum was agreed to be a bit loose,while the Fire Department request of 1,500 square feet was thought to be excessive, it was agreed that the compromise on this use group would be 2,100 square feet with a pull station at every required exit, smoke detectors every 900 square feet of floor area and three strobes minimum (one white strobe out front or at access to building and two horn/strobes inside building). All agreed. Use Group R: All agreed that the current requirement and the 2009 Code requirement were sufficient and no changes needed to be made. All agreed. Use Group S-1: After a thorough discussion on this use group, the Commission members and the Fire Officials agreed on a compromise. The current requirement as well as the 2009 Code requirement for this use group throughout for high-piled combustible storage was agreed to be a bit loose, while the Fire Department request of 1,500 square feet was thought to be excessive, it was agreed that the compromise on this use group would be 2,100 square feet with a pull station at every required exit, smoke detectors every 900 square feet of floor area and three strobes minimum (one white strobe out front or at access to building and two horn/strobes inside building). All agreed. Use Group S-2: All agreed that the current requirement and the 2009 Code requirement were sufficient and no changes needed to be made. All agreed. At a point during the meeting, concern was raised that the Building Commission may be trying to loosen the code and make it less restrictive. However, Raoul indicated that the Building Commission was not trying to loosen the Fire Code in any way but was only looking to follow the current code which was the same as the new 2009. He also indicated that the Sprinkler Code was more restrictive. The Fire Departments main concern was occupancy load over square footage and that it was hard to calculate occupancy loads due to possible changes in use groups within tenant occupancy spaces. Raoul indicated that he would draft a copy of the agreed upon amendments to the 2009 I.F.C. and would send them to the Fire Department for their review prior to presenting them to the Building Commission for its approval. Raoul also indicated that he was going to have to go back and make some revisions to the 2009 I.B.C. amendments to match the 2009 I.F.C. amendments and 4 asked the Commission members to disregard the Building Code amendments that he had previously e-mailed to them. Raoul indicated that once all of the amendments are finalized, he will set up a meeting of the Building Commission to meet and vote on the amendments. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business discussed. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Tom Lohbauer to adjourn the meeting at 3:45 p.m., and seconded by Steve Silva. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, r I andra L. Kolba Acting Secretary Date: r 5