Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Building Code Board Of Appeals - 04/21/2009 - Special ler `41100 Minutes of Building Code Board of Appeals �� Special Meeting CE1VED Tuesday,April 21,2009,at 2:30 p.m. AUG 31 Fire Department Training Room,3rd Floor 2009 2406 Leopard,Corpus Christi,Texas CITySECRETARyS OFFICE I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:29 p.m. II. Roll Call Board members present: Cliff Atnip, John Dykema, Mike Lippincott, and John Kendall; Don Boyd arrived at 2:31 p.m. City staff present: Dale Jackson, Elsa Martinez Mr. Atnip inquired if Jay Reining, City Attorney, would be attending the meeting Mr. Jackson informed that Mr. Reining could not attend due to a planned City Council meeting Mr. Jackson informed that he apprised Mr. Reining about the status of this project and that Mr. Reining was okay with the board proceeding with the hearing without his presence. III. Review, Discuss, and Take Appropriate Action in the Matter of Appeal No. 0409-002, Request for a Code Variance to the International Building and International Fire Codes, Section 903.2.5,Regarding Sprinkler Requirements for Group I Occupancies, Location: Charlie's Place, 5501 Interstate Highway 37,Corpus Christi,Texas Mr. Jackson provided background information to the board on the matter at hand. Mr. Jackson informed the following: ➢ Building was built in the 1980s; ➢ Hotels/motels were not required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system; one was not installed in this building; ➢ Code has changed in the last 25 years; sprinkler systems are required for all R and I occupancies; ➢ This building is an 1 occupancy, institutional; ➢ This type of occupancy is further divided into 2 categories; ➢ 11—people capable of sustaining themselves during an emergency; ➢ 12—people not capable of sustaining themselves during an emergency; ➢ The majority of the area is type II; ➢ The detoxification center is an 12; ➢ Current code requires that a building be brought up to code requirements when a change in .occupancy occurs; ➢ Staff met with Charlie's Place group to discuss the problem; they met with Protection Development, Inc. (PD1), a fire protection group; ➢ PDI made a proposal; the proposal includes that the 12 area to be sprinkled and calls for a 3- hour fire separation(code requires a 2-hour separation between an I1 and an 12) and they would not sprinkle the 11; ➢ The argument in that situation is that there is no discernable difference between the occupants of an R1 and an II, especially in the case where people are doing a drug rehabilitation, but they will have completed the steps of detoxification and are as capable of taking care of themselves as SCANNED 4mor' ‘100 Minutes of Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting April 21,2009 Page 2 anyone staying within a hotel and possibly even better since there will be no children involved in the rehabilitation center as you would have in a hotel; ➢ Staff met with Chief Andy Cardiel, Fire Marshal, and both agreed, at staff level, that it was a reasonable proposal; ➢ The proposal exceeds the scope of authority of both the Fire Chief and the Building Official to approve this request. Mr. Atnip asked if there was anything else that needed to be said by the appellant with regards to Mr. Jackson's presentation of the case. Mr. Jeff Nesloney responded indicating that he was in agreement with Mr.Jackson's comments. Mr. Nesloney informed Mr. Atnip and the board that he did have other comments or information he wish to share with the board but the information was relevant to the fire alarm system. When asked by Mr. Atnip who would be representing the board Mr. Govind Nadkarni addressed the board indicating that Mr. Nesloney had been hired by the appellant as the project manager and that he, Mr. Nadkarni, was hired as a liaison or consultant. Mr. Nadkarni began his dialogue informing the board the following: ➢ The building construction of the project is concrete block separating every room; the floor and ceiling are concrete; and that there is a two-hour separation; ➢ PDI is the consultant hired after they met with the Fire Department for the first time because they have done the work on the core classifications and because they are the Fire Protection Engineers Licensed for the State of Texas. They are working on the fire protection and alarm system design. Mr. Nadkarmi indicated they just received the drawings, a day prior to the appeal, and that they have not had an opportunity to meet with Chief Cardiel or Mr. Borden. ➢ They have come forward to request a code variance, but otherwise, concur with Mr.Jackson. Mr. Nadkarni took the opportunity to approach the board to show the project plans, idents the areas in considered in this code variance request, and answer questions for board members. An inquiry came from the board as to what the building was built for originally. Mr. Nadkarni informed that it was a Hampton Hotel built in association with the race track. Mr. Boyd inquired about the composite of the structure. Mr. Nadkarni responded informing that the corridor wall was built with metal studs and the walls with concrete block. Mr. Kendall asked if it was a one-hour fire wall, and the corridor one-hour rated, and if they would maintain the fire rating. Mr. Nadkarni responded affirmatively. Board members asked if there was anything combustible structurally or architecturally in the building. Mr. Nadkami said there wasn't anything structurally combustible. By comment, Mr. Dykema commented that architecturally,you would have doors that would be combustible. Mr. Temple Kennedy addressed the board with recommendations on the fire alarm system. He informed that the existing building has a manual fire alarm system and that they are also recommending an automatic fire alarm system in this change of use. Mr. Temple shared a handout titled, "Charlie's Place Bulleted Summary" and highlighted on the sections titled "Means of Egress Features"and "Construction Features." He informed that they supporting the idea of sprinkling this one section. Mr. Atnip asked if the second floor will also be sprinkled as well. The answer was no. *1110 *NO Minutes of Building Code Board of Appeals Special Meeting April 21,2009 Page 3 Clarification was asked by several board members about whether the second floor would be used as the detoxification center. The response was no and it was reiterated that only the first floor would be utilized as a detoxification center. Mr. Dykema asked if the entire building would be used. Mr. Kennedy agreed. Mr. Kennedy commented that in this project the use of the second floor has not changed, but the use of the first floor had. He continued by adding that the automatic fire alarm system will notes the occupants located in the second floor who would be egressing through the first floor to get to theexit discharge. Discussion continued among Mr. Mike Borden and Mr. Temple about the fire alarm system. Mr. Nardkarni and Mr. Jackson clarified for all present that the only issue before the board at this meeting was a variance from code on Section 903.2.5 applicable to the sprinkler requirements. Mr. Lippincott made a motion to grant a code variance regarding the automatic fire sprinkler in regards to the II occupancy where the owner of the property will install a fire sprinkler system in the 12 area along with a three-hour separation between the two areas. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dykema. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Nadkarmi and Mr. Nesloney expressed their appreciation to the board and City staff for their effort and time to make the hearing possible. IV. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. .A / . Presi i ng 1'� Y er