HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Building Code Board Of Appeals - 03/03/2009 - Special I
Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals RECEIV
Special Meeting ED
Tuesday,March 3,2009,at 9 a.m. AUG 31 2009
City Hall,Staff Conference Room
1201 Leopard,Corpus Christi,Texas
CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE
I. Call to Order
Mr. Cif Atnip called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
II. Roll Call
Board members present: Don Boyd, Cliff Atnip, John Dykema, and Ricardo Martinez. Mr. John
Kendall was present, but reclused himselffrom the board
City staff present: Doug Maples,Jay Reining, and Elsa Martinez
Appellant's representatives: John Kendall and Sue Corey
III. Review, Discuss, and Take Appropriate Action in the Matter of Appeal No. 0109-001, Request for a
Code Variance to the International Building and International Fire Codes, Section 903.2.7, Regarding
Sprinkler Requirements for Group R Occupancies,Location:Callicoate Mini Storage,4302 Callicoate
Road,Corpus Christi,Texas
Mr. Maples introduced the appeal informing that John Kendall submitted a code analysis on January
2, 2009. He informed that his response to Mr. Kendall was based on the code analysis and that it
listed background factual information. Mr. Maples explained that the watchman's quarters is part of
this storage building and is also a residential building. He explained that a portion of that building is
an office, a lobby and three other components. He added that an automatic sprinkler system is not
required in a single family dwelling according to the international residential code. Mr. Maples
informed that John Kendall indicated that he felt that this structure met the definition of this type of
facility. Mr. Maples informed that a Group B by itself located in a two-story, with 2,400 square feet
or less does not require a sprinkler either. He added that a two-hour fire separation is required
between a Group 3,single family, and a B occupancy.
Mr. Maples read from Mr. Kendall's analysis: "Based on the above information, an automatic
sprinkler system should not be required for the building containing a mixed use of a Group3 and a
Group B occupancy." Mr. Maples indicates that the applicant wants to substitute for the lack of
sprinklers a two-hour barrier between the Group 3 and B occupancy. He directed board members
attention to the definitions within the international building code and the international residential
code. Mr. Maples specifically cited Section 101.2 of the building code: "The provisions of this code
shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair equipment use
in occupancy locations, maintenance removal and demolition of every building or structure or any
pertinences connected or attached to such buildings or structures. Exception: Detached one and two
family dwellings, multiple single family dwellings (townhouses), not more than three stories above
grade in a height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the
international residential code." Mr. Maples commented that the international building code redirects
to the international residential code when there is residential construction involved.
Mr. Maples then cited Section 101.2 of the IRC: "The provisions of the international residential code
for the one and two family dwellings shall apply to construction, alteration, movement, enlargement,
replacement, repair, equipment use, and occupancy and location removal and demolition of attached
one and two family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings (townhouses), not more than three
stories in height with a separation, with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures."
Mr. Maples noted that reference is made to the international residential code when dealing with a
residential construction project; reference is made to the international building code when dealing
with commercial construction; and that provisions in the international residential code are built into
the building code to address projects of mixed uses. SCAN N E D
• •
Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals
Special Meeting
March 3,2009
Page 2
Mr. Maples informed the board that it is important to understand these definitions and how to get
from one code versus the other code and vise versa. He further stated that based on the scoping
requirements of the International Residential Code and the International Building Code, it is clear
that where a building contains a Group B and a Group R occupancy, the building must conform the
regulations of the International Building Code. Mr. Maples informed that when you have mixed uses,
the code to reference is the International Building Code.
Mr. Maples then directed the board's attention to the International Building Code, Section 903.2.7:
"An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided
throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area." Mr. Maples informed his position is based on the
mixed uses and there being no exception in the building code to allow or a trade off that allows
substitution for the fire wall that John indicated between the two different occupancies. He added that
sprinklers are required Mr. Maples informed that he concludes that the City requires sprinkler
system in this project.
Mr. Maples also informed that he had a discussion with the applicant in the office lobby area,perhaps
shortly after he obtained his permit on this project, and the applicant indicated to him that there are
other similar facilities in the City like this one where the City did not require them to install a
sprinkler system. Mr. Maples informed the board that after he investigated he found this to be true.
He informed that the City did not require these other applicants a sprinkler system where a
combination of Group B and Group R occupancy exists. Mr. Maples informed the board that he
shared with the applicant that it is his belief that two wrongs do not make a right and that the previous
projects he investigated should have had sprinkler systems installed
Mr. Dykema inquired if the buildings that Mr. Maples investigated were built under this same code
(2003)? Mr. Maples answered affirmatively. He commented that one of these projects had been
finalized when this applicant requested the permit(s)for this project.
Mr. Lippincott asked if the issuance of permits to these other applicants was an oversight on the City's
part. Mr. Maples said he could only answer in a general manner given that he was not employed with
the City when those permits were issued. He said he believed it may have been an oversight. He
informed the board that a sprinkler system should have been required for each of those projects. He
informed the board that since he has been on board, he has tried adhering to applying the building
code. He added that there are times that tweaking the code to meet the intent is feasible when the
code provides the liberty to use alternate materials and methods. He reiterated to the board that in
this specific case he could not find a section that would allow a trade off in lieu of the sprinkler
system.
Ms. Sue Corey addressed the board and stated that they were not going to disagree with the building
official and his interpretation, but came to this board with the intent of requesting a variance from
code from the sprinkler system in light of the fact that this is primarily a single family dwelling with a
minor office. Ms. Corey informed that the owner is willing to do a two-hour separation which will,
they believe, comply with all life safety issues. Ms. Corey informed that they believe a sprinkler
system is a bit to onerous for something so small, approximately 2,000 square feel. She stated that
this is not a large house and it's not a large office and that there isn't any excessive occupant load,
maybe two or three people.
A study of the floor plan was reviewed by the board and the plan description was provided by Ms.
Corey.
*NW ‘1410
Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals
Special Meeting
March 3,2009
Page 3
Mr. Atnip asked for clarification on where the fire wall separation would occur. Ms. Corey informed
that it would occur between the tenants, between the first and second floor, and between the garage
and enclosing the stairs.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification on whether the floor would be two-hour rated and for an explanation
on how that would be accomplished Mr. Boyd informed Ms. Corey that they needed to know what the
construction of the building is and how they intend to build the fire wall.
Mr. Kendall responds to Mr. Boyd's inquiry and says that the bottom of the joist there will be 5/8"of
fire code sheetrock and another layer, two layers. Mr. Boyd clarified that he understood that they
would be using the sheetrock as the fire wall.
Mr. Atnip then asked if a two-hour fire wall could be made from the stair case. Ms. Corey responded
affirmatively. Mr. Maples added that the staircase would have a 90-minute door.
Mr. Dykema inquired about an allowance in the residential zoning that allowed for private offices.
He asked if this didn't exist anymore or if these today have to be sprinkled? Mr. Maples responded
that this particular project falls under the watchman's quarters in the zoning code. He informed that
the watchman's quarters is the residential portion and associated with the commercial business type
activity for security and managing the facility. Mr. Dykema informed that there are lots of
professional offices in residential districts in residences. Mr. Maples clarified that these are
considered home occupations. He added that the primary use of home occupation, as he understands
the zoning code, is the residence. He informed that the primary use in this type of project the board is
considering is the commercial activity for the storage facility. Mr. Maples once more reminded board
members that this is a commercial activity, as opposed to a residential, where public activity is
limited
Mr. Boyd asked a fire alarm would be installed. Ms. Corey said no, that only smoke detectors would
be installed. Mr. Maples informed that only smoke detectors were required in a residential portion.
Mr. Dykema inquired of Mr. Maples if he had an opinion on whether fire protection is a reasonable
alternate.
Mr. Atnip asked Ms. Corey what the price difference was in putting in a fire wall versus a sprinkler
system. Ms. Corey informed that the sprinkler system costs$6 square foot and the sheetrock would be
significantly less, less than half the price quoted for the sprinkler system.
Mr. Dykema noted that there are situations in which fire walls are considered acceptable separations.
Mr. Maples agreed and informed that when separators are installed, these are now treated as
separate buildings.
Board members and Mr. Maples continued discussion on the movement of sprinkler systems, which
have been incorporated into the 2009 codes.
Mr. Boyd made a motion to grant this variance based on the requirements of a two-hour wall where
the stairs are located,the stair fire-rated door, and a two-hour separation wall between the first and
second floor of the entire building where the watchman's quarters will located,and the installation
of a minimum of three quality type fire smoke detectors on the first floor, seconded by Mr.
Martinez.
The motion carried unanimously.
Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals
Special Meeting
March 3,2009
Page 4
The board members and Mr. Maples continued some discussion on the possibilities of seeing more
code variance appeals in the future as a consequence of more stringent codes. Mr. Maples informed
the board that there is currently a bill before state legislators requesting that the sprinkler systems be
required on residential construction projects of 7,500 square feet or more. Mr. Maples informed that
jurisdictions may take the stance of not requiring single family dwellings to be sprinkled
IV. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 a.m.
/ 1 1
Presiding Officer