Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Building Code Board Of Appeals - 01/09/2009 - Special Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals RECEIVED Special Meeting Friday,January 9,2009,at 8:30 a.m. AUG 31 2009 Fire Department Conference Room 3rd Floor Development Services Building CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE 2406 Leopard,Corpus Christi,Texas I. Call to Order Mr.Atnip called the meeting to order at 8:55 a.m. II. Roll Call Board members present: Don Boyd, C1 ffAtnip, Ricardo Martinez, and John Kendall. Mike Lippincott joined the meeting at 9:04 a.m. and John Dykema at 9:09 a.m. City staff j present: Doug Maples,Jay Reining, Deborah Brown, Sylvia Arispe, and Elsa Martinez III. Approval of Minutes of December 15,2008 Special Meeting After a brief discussion, Mr. Don Boyd motioned to approve the Minutes of the December 15, 2008, Special Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kendall. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Atnip described the process to be followed to review the recommendations submitted by Architects Jeri Morey and Javier Huerta. He informed all present that the presenters would be allowed to provide a brief overview of each recommendation; City staff would then state their position or opinion on the recommendation; and the board would/would not take action on each recommendation. IV. Review,Discuss,and Act as Appropriate on Proposed Local Amendments Submitted by Architect Jeri L. S.Morey Recommendation: "For Chpt.14-Sect.213 and 222 that concern Inspections, I recommend Section 109 of the IBC, though there may be something from the old you may want to keep. It incorporates special inspections and lays out a more comprehensive list of what needs to be done." Board members opted to take no action on this item. The board will wait on City staffs recommendation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Recommendation: "For Chpt. 14-Section 223, the Certificate of Occupancy, Section 110 of the IBC, has a better description of how it needs to be written." Jay Reining commented on improvement needed in this area and reasons. Legal counsel will undertake this item and a bring recommendation back to the board. No action taken by the board on this item. * * * * * * * * * * * * Recommendation: For Chpt 14-Sections 214 and 220 Powers and Duties of the Building Official, Section 104 of the IBC has a better description, and includes a more comprehensive explanation of what kinds of evidence need to be submitted Alternative Means and Methods and what to do with the paperwork. Our standard of filing it with inspections does not appear to be adequate, because this needs to be a permanent document, kept for the life of the building, so all parties will have access to it if some disaster happens and especially if people get sued—not just next year, but 30 to 50 years from now." SCANNED Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 2 Mr. Maples informed the board that he is working this into the revisions. The board will wait on this to review Staff's recommendations. * * * * * * * * * * * * Recommendation: "For Chpt. 14-Section 215 Permits: It seems to me we need to retain the references to the Texas Dept. Of Health and EPA and the exclusions for government work getting a permit, but at the same time, the rest of Section 105 of the IBC would seem to be an improvement, especially the list of what does not need a permit. For example, we need to require permits for replacement doors and windows and glass, because there may be fire safety standards that should be met, human impact standards that should be met, and on the exterior, windstorm and energy efficiency standards that should be met. Section 105 would eliminate our exemption for permits to repair less than 25% of roofs or exterior walls, which is appropriate so that windstorm provisions can be incorporated Also, we have an exemption for permits for sidewalks and drives now. But what really should occur is an exemption if the construction is not higher than 30"above the ground below and if it is not on a path for accessibility. Even if TDLR is going to do the accessibility inspection, the applicant needs to get a building permit so you can be sure they have properly notified TDLR. I have seen handicapped ramps put in several years ago for CCISD's Alternative High School, where there was no city permit and the ramps fell very far short of meeting TDLR's requirement." Mr. Maples informed the board that this is perhaps one of the more controversial parts of the code. He informed that it contains many exemptions that have requirements built into an exemption. Mr. Maples informed that this section is very difficult to follow, it will be difficult for staff to understand it, and so it will be for the public as well. Mr. Maples informed the board that if they looked at the building code, the building code has exemptions for building, electric,plumbing, and mechanical that cover one page, compared to six pages of exemptions in Chapter 14,Administrative Code. Mr. Boyd voiced disagreement with having to require someone to come in and obtain a permit to replace a door or window. He expressed that the City does not have to be micromanaging what folks do. Mr. Maples responded to Mr. Boyd providing a scenario to illustrate why windows are considered very critical. Mr. Maples identified windows and small and large missile type windows. He shared that if the region were San Antonio this might not be a big issue because then the only issue to deal with would be the egress window of a bedroom that is considered critical. Mr. Maples went on to say that in the case of small and large missile protection, if a person has a building and is required to have this type of window, but they take that window out and substitute it with a less standard window, the safety of the building has been compromised during a severe storm. Mr. Boyd responded asking how would one know or not know if the person will be using a storm shutter. Mr.Boyd informed the code allows for non-impact glazing if storm shutters are on site. Mr. Maples agreed. Mr. Boyd responded that this would be micromanaging. He voiced disagreement with this. Mr. Maples informed that he wasn't disagreeing with Mr. Boyd viewpoints, but has to keep in mind the general public who thinks they are doing the right thing, that they are getting a higher energy window or whatever their reason is for changing the window, they have no emergency egress out of their bedroom or they do not have the protection for small or large missile debris. 4111, *IF Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 3 Mr. Atnip informed that this board will not want to create bureaucratic difficulties or require enormous staffs. Mr. Maples acknowledged Mr. Atnip's stance, and reiterated that this was the reason he indicated early on that this section would be controversial. * * * * * * * * * * * * "For Chpt. 14-Section 217 Construction Documents, the Section 106 would seem to be a better description. For example, somewhere in our documents it calls for floor plans to be drawn at '4" scale. While most of us have some part of the floor plan at the scale, I don't see anyone drawing an entire commercial building at that scale. The section 106.3.4.2 that talks about Deferred Submittals would be a good addition as well as the discussion of amended construction documents whenever we revise the construction. Our rules now simply say we need another permit for changes, and I really don't think that is what is either needed or being done, because you really do want to keep all the information on one project together." The board will wait to see what Mr. Maples incorporates into the Code. No action was taken by the board on this recommendation. * * * * * * * * * * * * For Chpt. 14-Section 226(a)(3) Powers of the Building Code Board of Appeals:Section 112.2 of the IBC has the only scope of your service for appeals that is needed now. In other words, what changed with the IBC was that folks realized that we really can now prove whether or not alternatives are "equal" or not to the original. So, the work of this board should be limited to making sure the Building official interprets the code correctly and whether or not he approves correctly Alternative Means and Methods proposals that really are equal. If you retain the existing language, what you will be doing in my judgment is using a standard that is both logically inappropriate and potentially weaker than the IBC intends. In other words, if what is approved really does meet the level of safety the code intends, there is no reason why everyone can't use the same design. The city has no business approving standards that are less than code, without a scientific study for how much injuries and property damage would increase. If such a study was possible, the public would surely reject any expected increases in personal injuries." Mr. Maples informed the board that he will provide the opportunity to consider what the City has in place now and what's in the building code. He informed that the building code is very simplistic and does not provide very good guidance. Mr. Maples informed that he is not in agreement with substituting Section 112.2 with what's in place today. * * * * * * * * * * * * "The second item is the occupancy count for business occupancies which was changed from the 100 sq.ft.per person it has been 'forever"to 200 sq.ft.per person, which has been much closer to actual worst case occupancy for at least 35 years. My only hesitance is recommending this change is that 1 am not sure the plumbing fixture count is appropriate for business occupancies if the smaller number of people is used." Recommendation: "For the Int. Existing Building Code:I still recommend a change to the Exemption to Section 101.5 that allows existing buildings to be constructed the same as allowed under the code in which it was originally built. This provision was originally meant to say, 'Subject to the Building Official's Approval'but due to the order of voting code changes, it was accidentally deleted at the last minute. At the next code cycle, it was put back in." '1111, 41111, Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 4 Mr. Maples informed the board that he does not want to make changes to the national standards unless there is very good documentation to support the change. * * * * * * * * * * * * Recommendation(s): "There were a lot of dangerous things allowed prior to 1950, as well as some things later. This is a standard not only for "existing to remain" construction, but also for new construction to be done in existing buildings. In older time,fire sprinklers were rarely required and fire alarms were not generally required before the 1950's. We did not have a standard for time ratings of fire doors before the 1940's. We did not have fire-rated sealants for protected openings until the 1980's. I have read through parts of virtually all the older codes, and I do not see anything that anyone would really want, except things that are unsafe. So, 1 recommend either that you add the 'Subject to the Building Official's approval' language, or better yet, delete this section. If the language is 'subject to the building official's approval,'it can't just be his choice, because the Texas Supreme Court has said he can't treat people to a different standard of safety, so this board will need to go through the old codes and figure out what is safe enough. You probably don't want to take that time." "For the rest of the IEBC:you do need to retain Section 101.5.1 through 101.5.3 because these are the three separate options of how a design professional can choose to use this code. The Chpt. 3 language is basically the same as Section 3401 thru 3406 language in the IBC while the Chpt. 13 language is basically the same as Section 3410 language in the IBC. But there is a problem with Chpt. 3 in that many architects in my experience really don't know what 'alterations shall meet new construction standards' or what 'construction affected by' the alteration means. Many architects don't know that the maintenance standard means we must verify the history of when the project was built or altered and find out how much of the existing building was wrongly built or wrongly changed since it was built. When we properly understand how much upgrade is really required by existing building code rules, it is my view that we really don't need the 50%rule any more, because in a lot of cases, we will come very close to it anyway. And this is not just true for the Chpt. 3 option it is also true for the Chpt. 4-12 and the Chpt. 13 options." Mr. Maples informed the board that he believes that Ms. Morey's recommendation will be covered in the code amendments being developed * * * * * * * * * * * * This concluded Ms. Morey's presentation to the board V. Review, Discuss, and Act as Appropriate on Proposed Local Amendments Submitted by Architect Javier Huerta Mr. Maples introduced the six-page document submitted by Javier Huerta and informed the board that this document has been in existence for a long while and was submitted to the Building department in 2006. Mr. Maples also directed attention to a licensing newsletter that was provided to each board member noting that this newsletter has very important information that the board should read about and keep in mind while considering Mr. Huerta's recommendations. Mr. Reining addressed comments to the board regarding licensing in state laws for licensing of architects and licensing of professional engineers and different authorities over one profession than the other profession. 11.110 41110 Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 5 Mr. Huerta then addressed the board. He provided a background on how the document came into existence. He informed the board that they discovered some items in the existing code, particularly Section 14-217. He informed that this document has been in the works since Art Sosa was a Building Official for the City. He added that the document was further discussed when Alonso came along. He informed that at that time, the chapter of Amerkan architects met with and began dialogue with Gary Smith and Skip Noe about how the document could be supported by the community and get approval from Building department. Mr. Huerta informed the board that this document does not resolve the state issues. He informs that they leave the licensing or regulating the practices of architects and engineers to the state. Mr. Huerta highlighted that page one clarifies the submittal of documents, what is in the submittal, submittal of the drawings. He informs that this item recommends changing language from "drawings and specifications"to "construction documents." Mr. Huerta informed that this item serves to clary language. Mr. Huerta moved to the next change in the document noted on page 2 of 6, Subsection 4, deleting the term "design." He informed that the purpose would be to not limit the documents to a drawing, but rather broaden "construction documents." Mr. Huerta moved to Section(k) on Page 4 of 6. He informed the board that a few years ago there was a church on Waldron Road that the building official was struggling with Mr. Huerta read Subsection 2 listed in Section(k) and informed that the building official and legal services department interpreted at the time was that if in conflict, the engineering board regulates the architects' protection. Mr. Huerta informs that this is contradictory to the state. He added that the state has two independent regulated boards with two different disciplines. Mr. Huerta informs that the recommendation provided in this document is to delete this Subsection 2 from Section(k). He informs that it should not be the City's position to regulate the practices of the engineers. Mr. Huerta continued to inform that after claring this point, the architects asked if they could put a simple description of the engineers'and architects'scope might be. He added that this doesn't exist and that the state is struggling to create this scope. He informed that the state has a joint advisory board that is trying to resolve a clarification of the scope for each discipline. Mr. Dykema inquired from Mr. Huerta on who had created the description in subsection 1 in Section (k). Mr. Huerta named the various groups that participated in creating this description. Mr. Huerta moved on to share a what now becomes Subsection 2 on page 4 and 5 of the handout and explained this outlines allow on what would be required when submitting the City Department on the different types of building and whether they should have the seal of a registered architect or a licensed a professional design. Mr. Reining engaged in the discussion and informed that the City has always required either/or, but not both. He added that the problem is that the professional engineers and their board say that they can do it all and they never need an architect. Mr. Reining voiced that the City has the authority to tell architects what they can and cannot do, but such is not the case with the engineers as they are governed by the state architectural rules are; the City cannot restrict what an engineer can do. He added that the legislature did not put similar language into the engineering act as they did for the architectural. Mr. Reining informed that this section "would require the hiring of an architect when an engineer says I don't need—under our law, that's practice of engineering and we can do everything that an architect does." `11W 41110 Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 6 Mr. Huerta reiterated that this is a dispute at the state level between architects and engineers. By adopting this, this would require that both professionals work it out among the two. Mr. Huerta finished reviewing Occupancies listed in numbers 3 through 9 of Page 5 and the remaining minor changes listed in Subsection 2(b) of Section(k) and Subsection 3. The board asked Mr. Maples to comment on Mr. Huerta's recommendations. Mr. Maples informed that he believes this document give a much clearer guidance. He added that this document has been reviewed by different eyes, different disciplines—attorneys, architects, etc. Mr. Maples informed that the component that this document brings is excellent to help the jurisdiction understand when professionals are involved and when they are not required to be involved but they can be. Mr. Reining and board members asked about the engineers'opinion on the recommendations. Mr. Maples informed that this is the opportunity to move forward after three years of discussion. He added that this would now be the opportunity for the engineers, home builders, and construction industry to come forward and give an opinion on the recommendations. Mr. Huerta and Mr. Maples clarified that these recommendations do not affect single family dwellings. Mr. Martinez inquired about the handwritten comments noted on the document. Mr. Maples took ownership to the handwritten marks (checks) and the handwritten words. He informed that he changed the word "are" in Subsection 3 to "may be" to give latitude in circumstances that may warrant latitude. Mr. Maples informed that there may be a very talented individual that may be capable of providing the minimum requirements of the code and added that this individual would have to meet the minimum requirements of the code. He added that if the individual didn't meet the minimum requirements he would then have to continue to go through the resubmittal process. Mr. Atnip asked for direction on Mr. Huerta's recommendations. He asked if these need to come back to Mr. Maples and legal to add to the current code. Mr. Reining commented that the main issue here is whether the City can tell a professional engineer that he needs an architect on the job. Mr. Reining reminded board members that the engineering board that the engineer can act as the architect in all aspects. Mr. Atnip asked how this should be resolved Mr. Reining informed that he is working on it. VI. Review, Discuss, and Act as Appropriate on the Definitions for Historical Building, Townhouse(s), and Dangerous Buildings in Accord with Windstorm Regulation(s) There was no discussion on this item. Mr. Maples informed board members that this item would be brought back to them at a later time for adoption. VII. Review, Discuss, and Act to Adopt the 2006 International Building Code and 2006 International Residential Code There was no discussion on this item. Mr. Maples informed board members that this item would be brought back to them at a later time for adoption. VIII. Review, Discuss, and Act as Appropriate on Proposed Amendments to the International Building Code,International Residential Code,and International Existing Building Code There was no discussion on this item. Mr. Maples informed board members that this item would be brought back to them at a later time for adoption. Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 7 IX. Review, Discuss, and Act as Appropriate on the Administration Provision for Technical Construction Codes in Chapter 14,Code of Ordinances There was no discussion on this item. Mr. Maples informed board members that this item would be brought back to them in a future meeting for continued review and discussion. X. Review,Discuss,and Act as Appropriate on the Building Fee Structure for Plan Review(s) Sylvia Arispe presented to the board She shared that an exhaustive effort revealed that the City has not been assessing a good portion offees—accessibility fees,plan review fees—that had been assessed and approved by City Council in 2006. Ms.Arispe shared in Chapter 14, the City has consolidated all of the fees in a much easier to read format for folks outside the city who want to do small projects or one project in our city. Ms. Arispe shared with members the Development Services web-page that facilitates the Building Permit Application Status Report. She informed that this report is uploaded daily details projects in plan review. She also shared that the Residential Construction Building Application Permit Application Status report is available as well. Ms. Arispe informed that the City has also updated the fees schedule, providing a clear link to the municipal code, which provides the exact citation. Ms. Arispe also informed of the calculators for use—commercial fees and residential fees calculators. She informed that these include all of the fees associated with Development Services, Chapter 14 as it relates to plumbing/mechanical, electrical, building, zoning, and some platting fees. Ms. Arispe informed that these have been consolidated, separated by discipline, separated by new residential or new commercial. She informed that individuals from out of the city have already been using it, but that they have expressed dislike of the fee structure. She informed that it is currently square footage and valuation based and that staff is currently revisiting the fee structure. Ms.Arispe informed that as Mr. Maples becomes more acquainted, the Department will be moving the valuation based method out and go straight to square footage. She informed that in order to move in that direction, the City staff has to have buy-in from many of the groups—boards and committees— the City does business with. Ms.Arispe gave a brief explanation on how the City staff might calculate a building permit fee. Ms. Arispe informed that in order to move from a Special Revenue fund, become self sufficient from the General Fund, move to a full enterprise fund the way that Utilities are and be fully self- sustainable, a study of all fees is necessary. She added that when a comprehensive review of the building fees was done, the results were a 30 percent increase in the fees across the board Ms. Arispe added that Development Services does not plan revisiting the building fees for another two years. Ms.Arispe informed the board that Mr. Maples along with this board would have to determine what methodology will be used in two years to determine what the building fees will be. Mr.Atnip asked about how soon data might be available for the board to consider on the methodology being explored to assess permit fees. Ms. Arispe and Mr. Maples informed that it would be approximately one to two months. XI. Building Official's Report: Department Updates Mr. Maples informed that Building Services staff continues to work on completing minutes and forwarding the recommendations made by the three boards to Mr. Reining. Mr. Maples expressed that he anticipates having the code amendments ready for submission by the ladder part of February, early March. • ‘11111 41111, Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting January 9,2009 Page 8 An inquiry was made of Mr. Maples about marketing dollars available to inform people of the code changes. Mr. Maples informed that there are no funds available for advertising and that he would be the staff that would visit with the different groups during the day or at night to share what the changes are. Mr. Maples informed that Building Services continues with the recruiting/hiring process. He informed that we have consultants assisting with maintain the service that we are providing at a substantial cost per month. He informed that Building Services will make efforts to eliminate these costs and move forward with hiring permanent staff Mr. Maples informed that he is working in creating a position of an assistant building official for a staff who would be available to make decisions when he is busy attending meetings, etc. XII. Public Comments Board members may not deliberate or make a decision on any matter presented at this time. The Open Meetings Act limits Board response to only two options: 1) a statement of specific factual information given in response to an inquiry; or 2) a recitation of existing policy in response to the inquiry. Any deliberation of or decision about the subject shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on the agenda for a subsequent meeting. No one addressed the board during public forum. XIII. Identify items to be placed on next agenda Election of officers Permitting process(requested by Don Boyd) Mr. Atnip advised Mr. Boyd to provide Mr. Maples or the secretary with an outline or questions that would be made available to the board members for note taking or to follow along. XIV. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. Presiding lir icer