Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Building Code Board Of Appeals - 05/21/2009 *INV 410 Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals RECEIVED Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009,at 1:30 p.m. AUG 31 2009 Fire Department Conference Room Development Services Building,3rd Floor 2406 Leopard,Corpus Christi,Texas CI1Y SECRETARY'S OFFICE 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Board members present: Cliff Atnip, Don Boyd, Bill Ewing, John Dykema, and John Kendall; Mike Lippincott and Ricardo Martinez arrived during the discussion of Item IV. City staff present:Dale Jackson, Heather Lane III. Approval of Minutes: February 20,2009,Re-scheduled Regular Meeting; March 3,2009,Special Meeting;and April 21,2009,Special Meeting Mr. Boyd motioned to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2009, Special Meeting, seconded by Mr. Dykema. (The board did not act on approving the February 20 and March 3, 2009 minutes; hard copies were not provided for review, since these were forwarded to board members for review via e-mail on March 11.) IV. Review, Discuss,and Take Appropriate Action in the Matter of Appeal No. 0509-003,Pursuant to Section 14-552 (2)and(3),To Allow the Construction of Public Bathrooms within the Floodplain, Location: 2926 Shoreline Mr.Atnip asked Mr.Jackson to provide a brief background on this variance request. Mr. Jackson provided information on the City of Corpus Christi's request for a flood zone code variance. He informed that this project is proposed to be built adjacent to the Lexington, within the right-of-way of the shoreline. He informed that the zone area is identified as a V-zone in the Flood ordinance, which requires that structures be built above base flood elevation. These particular buildings are proposed to be built at grade. He informed that the staff was unable to issue approval of the project, and therefore, the project is brought before this board for a code variance. Mr. Jackson proceeded to inform the board of the Community Assistance Visit review by the Texas Water Development Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency taking place downstairs at the time of this meeting. He shared that prior to this meeting the agencies' representatives had addressed him regarding their request to review code variances' documentation. The representatives brought his attention to the Flood Hazard Prevention Code, particularly, Section 14-544, Variance Procedures, Subsection 6) (1)-(3), which Mr.Jackson read aloud to the board. Mr.Jackson informed the board that he felt it necessary to share this at this time, considering the board was in the process of listening to a code variance appeal. Section 14-544 reads: 0) Prerequisites for granting variances: (1) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief (2) Variances may only be issued upon: a. Showing a good and sufficient cause; b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals SCANNED 11111110 `r✓ Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 2 After sharing this information, he informed that the staff did not have a recommendation to make to the board. Mr.Jackson introduced Billy Delgado with Engineering Services. Mr. Delgado reiterated the purpose for the code variance and informed that the primary reason for this project is to alleviate the nuisance that the businesses are suffering from visitors constantly using their restrooms due to the lack of public restrooms in that particular area. Mr. Delgado then introduced Mr. Chuck Anastos, Project Architect, and Jesse Valle, Production Manager. Mr. Chuck Anastos informed that this project was identified and approved in the 2008 Bond election by citizens and business owners who requested it. He proceeded to inform that the project would be built at the end of Bridge Port Avenue and the layout of the project includes 2 small buildings which translate to the equivalent of 240 square feet each. The structures will be in the proximity of the Lexington. These will be two restrooms with a utility chase, where the electronics that operate the laboratory and toilet will be located. The project will be a split face concrete block like other public restrooms that have been built for the City, a City prototype. The colors will tie in to blend with colors of the Lexington; it will be built slab on grade at about a 5' elevation. The surrounding area is about 41/2' with a very small rise in the elevation. The major ingredients make the restrooms accessible. Mr. Anastos informed that the other option to do this would be to elevate it on concrete pilings. To do this, 130 linear feet would be required for the ramp to be able to get to each level. The buildings will be separated: one will be for men's use, the other for ladies. One of the walls will serve as a barricade against the blowing sand and such wall will also be useful during a storm. This wall will not be a structural retaining wall, but it will act as a barrier for blowing sand There will be seating and landscaping around the buildings. Mr. Anastos informed that there is not enough land at this location to build on piers and that the budget is limited to $275,000 for this project. He noted that this amount would not be enough money to build on piers. Mr. Kendall inquired if studies of a wave action had been done by the City or if the building is flood proof Mr.Anastos replied with a no to both questions and said there is really no way to build a building like this flood proof Mr. Kendall asked about the plumbing fixtures. Mr. Anastos informed that they have requested from the engineers to reanalyze the fixtures and find fixtures that will. . . He informed that the toilet fixtures being used now are prison(-type) toilets stainless steel, 316 stainless steel, because of the harsh climate. Mr. Dykema asked if real estate would be a problem to consider the second option. Mr. Anastos indicated that there is real estate that can be found; however, it is ultimately the cost that makes the second option not feasible. Mr. Dykema inquired if the Plumbing board would be reviewing fixtures of this project. Mr. Jackson responded using the Oso Pier comparison. He stated that the variance was granted but the board did not have the authority to grant variances for the plumbing requirements. He added that unless they request a variance from the Mechanical/Plumbing Advisory board the City will not be able to build this project without some type offlood proofing of the water and sewer lines. Mr. Dykema asked if this is an issue they (this board)do not have to address and the City would have to address this at a different time. Mr.Jackson responded saying that this is correct. Mr. Atnip asked if the City (staff) was aware of this. Mr. Anastos informed that this is the first time he learns of this, but indicated that Mr. Reining is aware as the City has another project they are working on—the Packery Channel on the beach. However, Mr. Valle noted that said project is in the C-zone, so this is the first case with this set of circumstances. Mr. Valle voiced that they are working on finding the(appropriate)plumbing fixture, and that this would only come into play if they didn't find the plumbing fixture, then they would have to request a code variance to not do it. . . Mr. Reining informed that a separate system may be necessary and that backflow may need to be added Mr. Dykema advised that the City not underestimate the issue because this has been a big issue with the County and said there is precedent—they will know about it. He advised that the City should deal with it somehow. ‘111. Nor Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 3 Mr. Boyd posed an inquiry based on the scenario in which Corpus Christi would experience a hurricane. He asked how the City would deal with the neighbors if the hurricane destroys these facilities. Mr.Anastos responded that this was an engineering question and that he could not provide a response. Mr. Boyd stated that Mr. Anastos had stated earlier that these structures are not storm proof Mr.Anastos replied that this was correct and that no structure is storm proof if we experience a 20'storm surge. Mr. Atnip inquired about other similar structures located on North Beach. Mr.Anastos informed that there is one just like this proposed project built next to a concrete block structure in the middle, close to Surfside. He added that the one located on the north side of North Beach is wood structure and is in pretty bad shape, but still in use. Mr. Boyd shared that he understands this is a viable project and it needs to happen, but expressed his concern about granting variations to the City that they may or may not be granting to builders/developers. Mr. Kendall voiced that he has an issue with the City not conducting wave action studies on these type of projects, but requiring other appellants to provide such. He added that appellants have to spend a lot of money to have these studies done and the City acts like it doesn't have to. Mr. Valle responded saying that the City does not take the position of acting like it does not have to provide the study. He informed that they would look into it. Mr. Lippincott inquired about Mr. Jackson's reference earlier (to Flood Hazard Prevention Code) made during his opening comments on this appeal. Mr.Jackson read Section 14-544 6)(1)-(3). Mr. Anastos addressed Mr. Jackson. Mr. Anastos reminded Mr. Jackson that they have been working on this project for a month or month-and-a-half, and this was the first time they hear of this requirement. He indicated that he had been in one or two of the meetings and inquired why they were not apprised of this a month ago so that they could have been better prepared. Mr. Jackson responded noting that FEMA representatives had just reminded staff of the requirement that morning. Mr.Anastos responded indicating that City staff should know FEMA's requirements. Mr. Dykema informed Mr.Anastos that he should know of those requirements as well. Mr. Anastos informed that he was instructed to come to this board by Engineering and noted that everyone seemed to know about the height requirement and no one informed him that they would need a wave study. He once again reiterated that he had never heard of a wave study. Mr. Dykema reminded Mr. Anastos that he knew he was going to have to get a variance. Mr. Anastos acknowledged and stated he was instructed to get a variance. Mr. Atnip addressed the group and provided some experience background regarding North Beach projects with a low grade. He added that these types of projects come with all sorts of requirements. He shared that as Mr. Kendall has pointed out, other applicants who have requested a code variance in the past, the board has been rather stringent setting out the requirements that need to be met. Mr.Atnip informed that it is his opinion that those are based on the size and scope of the nature and how close other things are to it and those tend to be of private request and recognizes that this request is of public nature. He indicated that this would not mitigate anything already said about when a wave comes and the that board had to consider what this variance will do to the neighbors, might additional damage to the neighbors be caused, will it be problematic. He informed that these were the ramifications the board had to determine as this request was discussed and as the board tried to reach a decision on whether or not it should grant the request. Mr. Martinez began to make a comment/inquiry. Mr. Atnip interrupted and stated for the record that Mr. Martinez joined the board meeting during this discussion. Mr. Martinez proceeded to inquire of the City staff if consideration had been given to the design if this project may have break-away walls or provide openings where the water can go through, where the structure(s) would not suffer complete destruction. Mr. Anastos informed that this project was originally designed on concrete pilings, but bonds were sold in the$275,000 range;the pre-construction estimates on pilings for the ramp and the buildings are over $400,000. He informed that the project is half the size requested by the citizens because of the budget. timer 140 Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 4 Mr. Kendall informed that a wave action study was done on the Laguna Madre project. Lorenzo Gonzalez was the Building Official at that time. He suggested that if the City could produce wave studies of North Beach that may be in effect these might show what the impact could be. Mr. Valle responded to Mr. Kendall's response about the wave action study. He informed the board that as City employees they are not trying to get around providing a study and wish to abide to all the rules like everyone else. He stated that City employees are watched upon by everyone and also understands that development is a big issue. Mr. Dykema commented that the wave study is probably a minor issue; the bigger issue is the great wave walls. The board would need an appropriate answer to give FEMA as to why the board chose not to require wave walls on this project. Mr. Valle informed that the walls for this project are called split face block Mr. Dykema replied and said that if the City tried building this type of project on the Island, it wouldn't be allowed. Mr.Anastos informed that they are building these on the Island. Mr. Dykema asked if on City property. Mr.Anastos replied, 'for the City." Mr. Dykema responds saying that the County and the State would not allow this. Mr. Anastos informed that it was approved by GLO (Government Land Office). City staff clarified that the Packery Channel project is in a C-zone and these rules do not apply(to construction in this zone). Mr. Dykema voices that if the dilemma to build is based on budget issues, then the issue is that the project wasn't budgeted properly. He asked why the board should grant a variance because the budget wasn't done right. He stated that he's for the project to go, but finds no basis of justification for granting the variance. Mr. Boyd then commented that a neighbor in that vicinity has been required by the board to comply with the elevation requirement of 15'. He stated that he has a concern about having a double-standard. Mr. Lippincott informed that this appellant they are referencing was given the opportunity to have a wave action study done. Mr. Anastos requested for the board to consider tabling this item in order for the City to go back to the drawing table. He acknowledged that City staff knew this project would have a lot of problems, but said he was unaware of a wave action study being required. He apologized for his outburst. He also made note that other projects like this have been done on the Corpus Christi beach. He reiterated that he would like the opportunity to go back and have a wave study completed and also confer with staff to see if other projects may have come under budget and perhaps there are dollars left from other projects. The board acted to grant a variance from the Flood Hazard Prevention Code with the stipulation that a wave action study specific to project and site and that the following conditions can be met based on the wave study. • The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief • The variance shows good and sufficient cause; • Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant;and • Granting of the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. The board designates City staff the responsibility to make the final determination on receipt of the wave action study and confirmation from such. The motion was stated by Mr.Jay Reining, Legal Counsel;first motion made by Mr. Dykema and seconded by Mr. Lippincott. Ayes: Mr.Atnip, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Dykema, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Lippincott, and Mr. Martinez. Nixes: None Abstained: Mr. Boyd 41110y *411104 Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 5 V. Review, Discuss, and Take Appropriate Action in the Matter of Appeal No 0509-004, Pursuant to Table 503, International Building Code, Which Limits the Size of a Type IIB Group U Building to a Maximum Size of 8,500 Sq. Ft. without a Sprinkler System, Location: Calallen Independent School District, 4205 Wildcat Drive Mr.Don Boyd refused himself from the board during consideration of Item V. Mr. Jackson provided the board with a background of this appeal He informs that in this appeal a building for livestock is being considered, approximately 33,000 square feet. The size of the building greatly exceeds what's allowed for building without a sprinkler system. In an appendix in the building code, Appendix C, Type U buildings are allowed to be unlimited in areas and are not required to have a sprinkler system. He informs that the City of Corpus Christi has not adopted Appendix C of the building code. Mr. Dykema inquired about which building code he was referencing. Mr. Jackson informed it is the 2003 and stated that it is the same in the 2006. He informed that the applicant seeks approval of the project without the sprinkler system,pursuant to the provision provided in Appendix C of the building code. Mr. Dykema asked if the new proposed building code would allow this. Mr. Jackson indicated that he believes that the board has not adopted Appendix C of the new (2006) code. Mr. Dykema asked if Appendix C encompassed much more than this one item. Mr. Jackson stated that Appendix C covers just this. A copy of Appendix C was shared with board members. A brief discussion took place regarding the adoption of appendices. Mr. Reining informed that the City generally does not adopt the appendices and that these are used for reference only as opposed to being ordinance. Mr.Jackson informed the board that the Fire Department staff has been given the opportunity to review the request and acknowledged Captain Mike Borden being present. He added that the Building staff was recommending approval, the Fire Department staff didn't have any objections, the project is an open air facility, and that the board has a reference chapter in the building code that allows this situation. Captain Borden addressed the board and informed that the Fire staff was also recommending approval with the understanding that an all-weather driving surface for the Fire staff to get to the building and a fire hydrant be placed at the place of construction. Mr. Kendall made a motion to approve the variance with the understanding that the project is in compliance with the requirements of Appendix C and those of the Fire Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bill Ewing. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Atnip changed the order of business. The board moved to Item VII, while waiting for the appellant for Item VI to arrive. VI. Review,Discuss,and Take Appropriate Action in the Matter of an Amendment to Appeal No 030308,RE: City Building Code Section 903.2.1.1: Sprinkler Requirements for Group A-1 for Areas Over 12,000 Square Feet and Occupant Loads Over 300 People,in the Case of 1209 N.Tancahua,Corpus Christi,Texas Mr. Jackson provided the board with a brief background on the appeal regarding the Concrete Structure building. He informed of the purpose of bringing this matter before the board once more. Mr. Jackson reminded the board that it previously approved an infra-red beam detector system in lieu of a sprinkler system. Since, the applicant has come to realize that smoke generators will cause premature triggering of the smoke alarms. Mr. Jackson informed the board that heat detectors would stimulate the fire sprinkler system which is activated by heat as well. He indicated that the Fire Department staff feels more comfortable with the heat detectors than the beam detectors, and therefore, they have no objections. Mr. Jackson informed that the Building Operations staff recommends approval. Captain Mike Borden addressed the board informing that he has had the opportunity to review the proposed installation of the heat detectors which will be required to be installed per code and manufacturer's requirements. Final approval is pending the board's decision. • 1111110 'WO Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 6 • Mr. James Gourley addressed the board informing that initially they thought that the water-based fog would not impair the infra-red beam, but a recent show demonstrated that the dense fog generated would break the beam. He added that a simulated smoke made of a water-base chemical is used for theatrical effect during concerts. • Mr. Boyd made a motion to approve the request to install heat detectors instead of infra-red beam detectors,seconded by Mr. Mike Lippincott. Ayes: Mr.Atnip, Mr. Boyd,Mr. Dykema, Mr. Ewing, and Mr. Lippincott Naes: None Abstained: Mr.John Kendall,Mr. Ricard Martinez After consideration of this item, the board moved to consider Item IX. VII. Review and Discuss Candidates' Resumes/Biographies for New Board Member and Determine if a Recommendation Will be Submitted to City Council [Pursuant to Ordinance No. 12604 as amended by Ordinance No. 13554; (Section I, City Code amending Sec. 1 I I, Standard Building code, 1985 Edition); Ordinance No.021208—8/6/1991] The board proceeded with discussion on this item. After a brief discussion on the expired term of Mr. Don Boyd the board moved to act on a nomination for this position. Mr. Lippincott motioned to nominate Mr. Don Boyd for re-appointment to the Building Code Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Kendall. The motion carried unanimously. (Don Boyd refused himselffrom discussion/participation of this item) VIII. Review,Discuss,and Act as Appropriate to Adopt Amendments to the 2006 International Residential Code Mr. Reining explained the draft copy of the proposed amendments to the 2006 International Residential Code. Board members expressed interest in having the opportunity to review the document and prepare for the next meeting. The board did not take action on this item. The board changed the order of business and moved to consider Item VI. IX. Review,Discuss,and Act as Appropriate to Adopt the 2006 International Residential Code The board did not take action on this item. X. Building Official's Report: Department Updates Mr. Jackson briefed board members about the Community Assistance Visit by the TDWB and FEMA representatives and the purpose of the visit. On inquiry from board members, he informed that the City has significant problems with proper documentation of construction projects which have developed on the Island Board members inquired about their role on addressing issues of concern. Mr. Jackson informed that the board's role is impacted by the manner in which it grants code variances in flood hazard zones. He shared the City's plans in addressing some of the significant issues addressed by the representatives. Mr. Jackson shared the status on staffing. He informed that the plan review coordinator, senior building inspector, and two plans examiners should be on board in the next week to two;he informed that a building official should be hired by the next board meeting, as well. XI. 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. Minutes of the Building Code Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Thursday,May 21,2009 Page 7 Ms.Jeri Morey addressed the board from a point of information stance. She shared that window providers are not happy that windstorm requirements are not being complied with. ABC has scheduled a meeting for June 11 and they will be looking to City staff to make sure that the proper windows get installed or proper panels,particularly with impact protection. She added that she has just finished work with a study group at the national level with glass and window business people. She shared that the group addressed the concern of"not getting contract documents from design professionals or actual installation of the proper glass in the proper place for the purpose of fire safety." The study group that she served on put together a code amendment change for 2009. She informed that they will be taking table 715, two tables, and expand it so that glass ratings are on the same table as the wall, the stairway, the fire barrier. She informed that there would be slight changes on the labels that need to go on it. Ms. Morey stated that if staff is going to start a new policy of checking every window and every piece of glass in a commercial frame for windstorm, the same needs to be done for fire safety. Mr. Lippincott asked Ms. Morey if she was making reference more to residential as opposed to commercial, when speaking of windstorm. She said, she didn't know if they were referencing commercial or residential or both. He informed that part of a commercial building involves an engineer of record that certifies andf lls out a WPI2 form that goes to the state. He continued indicating that in following this process they are certifiring that the windows are either impact-resistant or that there is adequate protection. Ms. Morey informed that the ABC group is the one bringing this forward. Mr. Jackson shared that this came about from ABC after City staff met with about four glass people who brought this forward. City staff suggested to these individuals that they take this to ABC to get their group more involved with this. . . . Mr. Jackson continued explaining that in a meeting with ABC, the room was full of glass people, but that there were no architects or engineers. He added that ABC would be holding a third meeting and make it a point to request for architects and engineers to be there to get a better handle on what is going on. Mr. Lippincott inquired about this group's intent. He asked if this group was seeking to ask the City to do a better job in inspecting the windows. Mr. Jackson responded with a no. He explained that their concern is based on something that is not observable because it's covered up. He indicated that it is more of an engineering issue. He added that a concern that most of them had was that local contractors knew what the windstorm requirements were and they were complying with it and they were at an unfair advantage because of outside contractors coming from Austin and San Antonio that did not have to meet windstorm requirements and did not know what these were. Their concerns were that these engineers, who were signing off on these, were not properly observing or verifying that those things were done correctly. Mr. Lippincott stated that he doesn't see where this is a City issue, but rather is more of a design professional issue. Ms. Morey addressed one more concern related to the International Existing Building Code. The City staff should consider charging more for plan review services and training, whether the monies are generated through the City budget or through the applicants. XII. Identify items to be placed on next agenda No specific items were requested for consideration, other than those obviously needed to be placed in the next agenda for further discussion. XIII. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.