March 1, 2005
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present.
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed Thursday, March 17 for the day of the “Eighteenth Annual Saint Patrick’s Day Parade.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 15, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 24, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 280 vendors in the amount of $2,129,447.03. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Jazzhaus of Lawrence, 926 ½ Massachusetts; The Pool Room, 925 Iowa; and Allstars, 913 North 2nd Ste: C. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of one cab and chassis truck for the Public Works/Street Department off the MACPP bid from KCR International Truck in the amount of $50,674. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for CBX parts and maintenance service for various departments. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
United Asset Coverage $24,598.00
Siemens Communications, Inc. $30,354.48
R&R Communications $34,798.13
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to United Asset Coverage, in the amount of $24,598.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of March 15, 2005, for Folks Road, 6th Street to Harvard Road, street, storm sewer, and waterline improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of March 15, 2005 for 2004 miscellaneous storm sewer improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7823, rezoning (Z-06-22-04) a tract of land approximately 1.058 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), property is described as being located at 704 Folks Road, was read second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7833, rezoning (Z-07-30-04) a tract of land approximately 1.029 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), property is generally described as being located on the east side of Folks Road, south of West 6th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7859, annexing approximately 5.782 acres generally located in the right-of-way for East 23rd Street (K-10) for improvement of a west bound left turn lane on East 23rd Street at O’Connell, pursuant to City Commission direction on February 15, 2005, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6578, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Kansas Department of Transportation for 6th Street, Arkansas Street to Massachusetts, mill overlay and pavement marking (KLINK), FY 2005. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-11-82-04) for a two-story office building located at 1045 East 23rd Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Provision of the following revisions to the site plan:
a. Modify the Parking and building information to reflect a two-story building.
b. Modify the site summary to have a consistent property area, existing to propose.
c. To General Note No. 12 add, “…and “Standard Highway Signs,” published by the Federal Highway Administration, with respect to size, shape color, retroreflectivity, and position.”
d. Increase the 23rd Street turning radius to 25’ per a request from the City Engineer.
e. Modify the proposed Ash Trees to a street tree approved by the Master Street Tree Plan.
3. Filing of the Final Plat of Carpenter Addition No. 2 prior to release of the Site Plan to Neighborhood Resources for issuance of a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-04-02-04) for the Auto Exchange Preliminary Development Plan a proposed commercial development containing approximately 0.57 acre, property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of 33rd Street and Iowa Street, subject to the following conditions:
Note: Auto
Exchange Preliminary Development Plan; Conditions of Approval as understood by
City Staff and Applicant. Underlined is updated language, strikethrough
is removed language.
1.The following notes shall be placed on the Development Plan:
a. The applicant agrees to participate in a special assessment benefit district for the construction of improvements at the intersection of 33rd & Nieder Road.
a. Show curbline at south end of parking lot and potential for future connection to Lot 3A, Dunigan Subdivision.
b. The width of the 33rd Street driveway shall be 25 feet.
j. Internal drive aisle shall be 25 foot minimum width.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Aaron Blosser, 1226 Connecticut Street. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Patricia Fox, 615 Utah Court. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Retha Beebe, 2708 Rawhide Lane. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request from the Lawrence Convention and Visitor’s Bureau to close various streets and intersections for the Criteriuim Bicycle Race. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said utility bill inserts would be included in all billing cycles beginning in March regarding how to navigate a roundabout. (15)
Commissioner Schauner said, concerning the cable channel, there was no sound on that tape regarding maneuvering roundabouts.
Wildgen said that was a CD from KDOT and staff would check on that.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive report and update regarding various building code recommendations.
Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, presented background information and a staff report regarding the various building code recommendations.
He said the Uniform Building Code was no longer going to be published or updated. The two competing organizations providing model codes were the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) and the International Code Council (ICC).
He said in response to Commissioner Dunfield’s recommendation, staff created a Code Review Committee which consisted of one member from each Board, City staff, Mayor Rundle and other interested parties. He said staff felt the board reflected a well-rounded composition of individuals to evaluate the two organizations. He said evaluation criteria were established and a final report was produced.
The Code Review Committee looked at the following criteria in evaluating the NFPA and ICC:
1) Meets minimum life safety needs acceptable to the community.
a. Consistent with accepted standards of engineering, fire, and life safety?
b. Sound code development process?
2) Provides adequate support for training, certification, and interpretation.
a. What are the qualifications of trainers and interpretations staff, and what evidence is provided to support those qualifications?
b. What are the cost and availability of local training courses?
c. What are the cost and availability of online training courses?
d. What certifications are available, and what is the frequency for re-certification?
e. What are provisions for initial and re- certifications, including testing options, locations, and costs?
f. How are code interpretations provided, what is the procedure to obtain an interpretation, and what is the expected turn around time for interpretations.
g. How accessible are technical staff and are same day services available for technical questions.
3) Provides clear language within the code that is enforceable.
a. What evidence is provided that the language is clear and enforceable?
b. How do codes sets language compare to the 1997 Uniform Building Code set?
c. How flexible is the code language and how much interpretation is required by the Building Department.
4) Completely addresses all the issues needing regulation.
a. Occupancy groups
b. Types of construction
c. Accessibility
d. Egress and exiting
e. Fire protection
f. Existing buildings
g. Historic buildings
h. Construction materials
i. Hazardous occupancies/materials
j. Location on property
k. Special occupancies
l. Structural provisions
m. Site work and demolition
5) The family of codes is free of conflicts and is coordinated.
a. How are revisions made and what is the process to resolve conflicts?
b. What provisions are made for municipalities participation in creating and maintaining the code, and what oversight is in place to prevent abuse?
c. What other codes or standards are referenced, and of the referenced codes and standards which are mandatory?
6) The transition minimally impacts staff and developers.
a. What is the estimated training time and cost to adopt the codes?
b. What impact will the transition to the new code have on production, i.e. how much staff training time away from work, or other factors?
c. How are certifications for the new codes reciprocal with certifications for older code sets?
d. What is the impact of the new code on builders, developers, property owners and other stakeholders?
7) Code is accepted greatly by both City staff and the development community.
a. What national organizations support the code and why?
b. What jurisdictions have adopted the codes?
c. What are findings of other jurisdictions or organizations?
8) Requires minimal financial costs to the City for ongoing maintenance.
a. What are the costs to the city for participation in the code development process?
b. What are the costs for certifications?
He said in July of 2003, staff heard presentations from both organizations and had discussions on the pros and cons. He said all of those meetings were open to the public along with public meetings that occurred on September 30, 2003 and January 29, 2004.
On January 14, 2004, the CRC voted without opposition to recommend to the City Commission that the ICC code set, including the IBC, IFC, IRC, IMC, IPC, and International Fuel-Gas Code be adopted by the City of Lawrence.
The City Commission received the Code Review Committee’s Final Report on March 30th 2004. The City Commission voted to designate the Family of Codes from ICC as a base model code for the City of Lawrence and to refer the codes to the proper Boards. He said different Trade Boards considered the ICC and came up with the following recommendations.
• Plumbing Board recommended the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code;
• Mechanical Code Board recommended 2003 Uniform Mechanical Code;
• Uniform Building Code of Appeals recommended the building portion of the 2003 International Residential Code (IRC); and,
• Electrical Board recommended referring all electrical references to the currently adopted 2002 National Electrical Code.
He said the IRC was a code that provided code provisions for the construction of one or two family dwellings which included building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing portions for residential construction and that was why this code was appropriate for consideration.
He said a matrix was provided to the City Commission titled “Kansas Code Adoptions” which consisted of different communities that were contacted by staff to find out which codes those communities had adopted. He said there was an update to the matrix regarding Shawnee. They were operating under the UPC, but last night their City Commission approved the International Plumbing Code which resulted in their adoption of all the International Codes. Twenty-one ((70%) jurisdictions had adopted the ICC family of codes. Nine (30%) jurisdictions had a blended code adoption (Uniform Codes and International Codes). Of those nine, two (Douglas County and Shawnee) were currently considering the ICC family of codes.
He said staff concurred with the recommendation by the Code Review Committee to adopt the International Code Council Family of Codes as a base model code for the City of Lawrence.
Torres presented the following recommendations from the Code Review Committee:
1. In light of the initial review and recommendation by the Code Review Committee, staff concurs with the CRC to adopt the ICC family of codes as the base model codes for the City of Lawrence.
Impact: The adoption of the IRC, one of the components of the ICC family of codes, will provide greater local access for training for designers, contractors, and enforcement staff. The ICC has developed and maintains an Internet training program. The IRC contains all construction regulations for building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work to be done on one- and two-family dwellings. The adoption of the IRC provides all parties with uniform access to information. Continuing education (required in conjunction with the proposed contractor licensing program) will be available through the Johnson County.
Other Options
Impact: This option will result in a single code for residential construction. Commercial construction projects will use both the Uniform and International codes. The issue of continuing education for plumbing and mechanical contractors under the Uniform Codes will be a concern, due to the lack of locally available training. Continuing education requirements for the Contractor Licensing Program will need to be identified for approximately 400 contractors under the Uniform Codes, since there are no training opportunities readily available in the Kansas City metro area. This option will cause additional staff time dedicated to the Contractor Licensing Program.
The International Fire Code references other International Codes, thus blending codes may be problematic for fire inspectors, architects, engineers and designers. Blending codes, Uniform and International, will affect the design of building plans to accommodate both codes. The blending of codes will result in multiple amendments of other International Codes, i.e., International Building Code, International Existing Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code and others.
A blended code option will have an effect on staff certification and training. The adoption of blended codes affects the ability of staff to acquire the necessary Continuing Education Units (CEUs) required to maintain certifications through two model code agencies. This would require extra cost associated with travel due to the limited local training offered for the Uniform Codes. The goal of certifying the construction inspectors as Residential Combination Inspectors would not be possible with blended codes. Currently the code enforcement staff is required to have the ICC Certified Property Maintenance and Zoning Inspector Certifications. The Property Maintenance Certification references the ICC codes.
Impact: Similar issues of concern described in Option 2 regarding the International Fire Code, blending of codes, and continuing education for contractors.
Impact: Consideration of this option will include impacts described in Option 2. In addition, would result in an unbalanced continuing education requirement for licensed contractors.
Impact: This option will provide an opportunity for the Commission to explore the various options and impacts. In addition, Trade Board and Code Review Committee members are available to respond to specific questions.
Commissioner Dunfield said he wanted to understand the difference between option 2 and option 3 that was presented. He asked if with option 2, plumbing and mechanical contractors would be using different codes depending on what type of building they were working on.
Torres said yes that was correct.
Commissioner Dunfield said then those contractors would need to be familiar with two different codes rather than a single code.
Torres said correct.
Commissioner Dunfield said under option 3, the International Residential Code would be adopted, but modified with the plumbing and mechanical provisions of the uniform codes.
Torres said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was discussion at the Mechanical or Plumbing Boards about needing to know two codes.
Torres said in reviewing the minutes, he did not see or recall that discussion.
Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding that the primary reason that the Trade Boards preferred the Uniform Codes was because those codes were stricter and provided more protection to consumers and were easier to use because those codes were more self contained. He asked if that was an accurate summary of opinions.
Torres said that was one reason that the Board preferred the Uniform Codes, but there were other reasons. He said it was important to point out that a current practice in Lawrence was that the codes were locally amended such as the use of PVC pipe and cast iron pipe are allowed in the current Uniform Codes, but this City had chose to amend those items.
He said last week the City Commission considered amending the code concerning the cast iron and PVC pipe. He asked if staff should proceed with the drafting of the amendment sooner as opposed to later because the process that the City was currently under might take months before the International Residential Code would be resolved and staff needed direction to proceed.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if it could be projected when the International Building Code would be before the City Commission for adoption.
Torres said the Building Code Board of Appeals discussed that issue and expected from 6 to 9 months for the review process.
Commissioner Hack asked what the other issues were regarding the trade boards’ preference to the Uniform Codes.
Torres read the sections from each of the Trade Board’s minutes
Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters:
“Chairman Bob Brookman started the discussion by stating that his recommendation was to adopt the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code. Chairman Bob Brookman went on by saying he was not comfortable with Chapter 31 of the 2003 International Residential Code. Chairman Bob Brookman stated if the Board was going to amend the International Code to look like the Uniform Code, it would be easier to just go with the Uniform Code.”
Mechanical Board:
“Mr. Wyatt, “The UMC is more prescriptive and comprehensive while the IMC refers to other I-codes. I prefer the Uniform Mechanical Code.”
Mr. Estrada, “The UMC contains most of the information and you have the option to refer to other standards, the IMC requires reference to other standards. The UMC should be retained.”
Mr. Barrington, “After comparing chapter to chapter, I found the UMC is more complete while the IMC requires 3 to 4 other books to get the same information. The UMC is more restrictive in some instances and similar to the IMC in other respects. I prefer the UMC.”
Mr. Patchen, “I prefer the UMC because the information is contained in one book rather than several and it is more detailed.”
Mr. Sparks, “I’ll use the old adage, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I am satisfied with the UMC.”
Mr. Barrington made a motion to adopt the 2003 Uniform Mechanical Code as the recommended standard for all mechanical installations within the city of Lawrence. Second by Mr. Estrada. Vote unanimous by show of hands.”
Board of Electrical and Examiners and Appeals:
“Discussion ensued among all members regarding the recommendation of this Code to the Commission. Pat Shepard stated that electricians have always used the NEC for work in Lawrence and saw no reason to add an additional book. Jeff Oliver expressed that electricians are tested and licensed under the NEC, not the IRC. Chairman Frost stated that if any problems arose the builder would just call the electrician and never look at the IRC. Mr. Frost had attended several informational meetings regarding the IRC and the Builders wanted one book to go by, but the electrician would have a minimum of two books. One concern was future Boards would be responsible for reviewing and amending two Codes instead of one. Mr. Brickell agreed to go which way the electrical personnel decided, since they have to deal with the issues on a daily basis. Mr. Burke stated the current practice to write the Code site next to the violation would result in IRC references written next to electrical violations. Burke felt this could be confusing to some electricians. Burke also expressed it would be easier for him to perform the other discipline inspections using the IRC, since he is currently certified under it. Russell Brickell formed the Members idea into a motion to refer all residential electrical references to the currently adopted NEC and its’ amendments. The motion was seconded by Jeff Oliver and motion passed unanimously. “
Building Code Board of Appeals
“The board continued review of Chapter 11
Queen stated that new energy standards would raise the cost of new homes. He also stated that by raising the price on new homes, price increase would also be reflected in the existing housing market. This would punish home buyers of existing homes that would not benefit from the higher energy standards. Queen stated that by adding $1000 to $2000 to the price of homes some marginal buyers would be priced out of the market. Queen stated that the additional cost would more greatly effect entry level housing. The mid and upper end housing come closer to meeting the requirements.
Craft stated that the board was here to discuss the codes for new construction. He also stated that the City of Lawrence had to update the energy codes at some time and make homes more energy efficient. It would be better to update the codes now than to wait for higher energy and material cost. Home buyers of entry level home could least afford higher energy bills. The added cost to new construction should be considered as part of the total cost of home ownership. This included the initial purchase, mortgage payments and utility bills. Energy efficient homes had lower total cost of ownership. Craft also stated that homes that met the Energy Star Rating in some cases qualified for home buyers for lower mortgage rates because banks anticipated that owners would have to spend less on utility bills.
Porter stated that he has always factored in utility bills when deciding on the purchase of an existing home. Craft stated that the new code would increase the sticker price but lower housing cost. Porter stated that the new codes might add 1% to the price of a new home, while in the last 5 years housing and energy cost have risen between 5% and 10%.
Porter stated that he believed that the board could agree that as far as the new energy standards are concerned it would be cost effective for owners homes built to the new IRC standards. He agreed that the higher cost would affect existing housing.
Queen made a motion to amend chapter 11 table N1102.1
R13 exterior walls
R38 in attics
R30 in cathedral ceilings
If basement is finished insulate basement walls.
Jones asked Queen about the other elements of the table. Queen stated that those should remain as current construction practices. Queen stated that there was no energy code now and his proposal would be an improvement. Jones read the motion. The motion failed.
Stogsdill stated that he thought there may be a need for an energy code checklist, provide for more inspectors or an insulation inspection, but he didn’t feel that mandating chapter 11 was the way to go. Stogsdill suggested that the Board not adopt chapter 11. Porter thought that the board should adopt the chapter. Craft stated that the board should amend chapter rather that delete. Stogsdill stated the Building Code Board was a technical advisory board. The decision to mandate adoption of the energy provisions would be policy decision and not that of a technical nature. He stated thought that the Board should receive public input and direction from the commission on how to proceed.
Queen stated that he thought it was the board’s responsibility to make a recommendation to the commission. The Commission could decide to accept the recommendation or not.
Stogsdill made a motion to recommend adoption of the IRC with the exception of chapter 11 upon final review of amendments and to draft a statement to the commission asking direction on how to proceed. The statement should direct the board on the issue of affordable housing versus energy savings. Seconded by Smalter. Motion passed 3-2.”
Jim Sparks, Chairman, Mechanical Board, said their Board was asked to compare the International Codes with the Mechanical Code. After reviewing them chapter by chapter, the Board chose the Mechanical Code because it was more detailed and had easier access. He said there was a 5-0 vote in favor of the Uniform Mechanical Code.
Bryan Wyatt, member of the Mechanical Board of Appeals, said the Mechanical Board looked at the IRC and reviewed that code along with the Uniform Mechanical Code. He said he was the Vice Chairman of the Code Review Committee, and they only looked at the technical merits in the two NFPA 5000 versus the International Code and at that time the building side of that code for the NFPA 5000 did not get into the construction portion. He said there was a concern of the NFPA 5000 being more of a fire protection code then a construction code. He said the Fire Marshal pointed out that there were far more deaths associated with residential fires than there was from high rise fires across the country. Again, he said the Code Review Committee did not look at the technical merits, but the Board did.
He said the codes had been blended for many years and he did not see any concern. He said the plumbing and mechanical contractors and tradesmen did not have any problems with the current codes.
He said the Mechanical Code Board took pride in not having a number of amendments.
Commissioner Dunfield asked Wyatt to respond to the idea that staff brought forward about adopting the International Residential Code, but then adopting the Uniform Code only for commercial construction.
Wyatt said he would not be a person to respond to that question because in his business he had more residential projects, but speaking from the residential side, he disagreed with that concept.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if Wyatt would want to see all of the mechanical stay under the Uniform Code.
Wyatt said yes; residential and commercial. He said he didn’t see any real need for the builders to have up to date training. He said he’s been the one that is licensed and the city holds their certificate of insurance and the city can pull that any time they need it. He doesn’t see this being difficult for staff. He’s in favor of the uniform mechanical code.
A member of the public said he put together a lot of the documents in the commissioners’ packets as far as the research with the other codes from other jurisdictions. He spent the last two days on the phone doing telephone interviews with the different building officials. The process this commission is going through with is not unlike what other jurisdictions are going through; as far as developing code committees, making recommendations to the commission, and voting on those recommendations. As far as having the blended code, the common thing heard from the other code officials, is that it is not a simple process in amending uniform and international codes. The code officials say the plumbing code blends a lot easier than the mechanical code. Looking at the matrix, one has adopted the international and three have adopted the blended plumbing code. With the plumbing code, there are three or four references to the building code. If you adopt the international building code, you have to blend those references in when you make those amendments. The blending is not a simple process. Many cities have tried to blend these codes and it is too difficult. The codes blend in some instances and in some instances they do not.
Ken Christensen, Midwest Representative for the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, (IAPMO), resides at 1308 NW 43rd Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri. He supported updating the plumbing and mechanical codes presently being used, the 2000 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes to the 2003 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, as they presently apply, to all buildings, including one and two family dwellings. The matter has been under consideration since mid 2003. A Code Review Committee was developed to formulate recommendations of the codes to be adopted. There was opposition from the Plumbing and Mechanical Boards to the Code Review Committee’s recommendation of the International Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. It was decided to refer the plumbing and mechanical codes to the appropriate trade/advisory board to undertake a technical review comparing the International Plumbing and Mechanical Codes to the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, and refer their findings back to the City Commission. He said it was his understanding the commission has received the findings, where the Plumbing and Mechanical Boards, both found the Uniform Plumbing and Code and Uniform Mechanical Code to be their preference, by a unanimous vote by both Boards. He said that spoke for itself.
He provided the following features of IAPMO, the Uniform Plumbing Code and the Uniform Mechanical Code as reason to continue using them and upgrading them to the 2003 editions.
1. The City of Lawrence has used the Uniform Plumbing Code and the Uniform Mechanical Code for the past 30+ years, without problems.
2. The Uniform Plumbing Code is the most widely used plumbing code in the United States, and in the recent past has been adopted by several foreign countries. It may be said that the International Plumbing Code is more prevalent in Kansas. That may be the case in Johnson County, but in a recent survey made in Kansas, of the seventy-two jurisdictions that responded to the questionnaire, forty-three jurisdictions responded that they were using an edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 67.5%.
3. IAPMO has developed, and published support documents to assist the users, such as the Uniform Plumbing Code on CD-Rom, The Uniform Plumbing Code Study Guide, a Uniform Plumbing Code Illustrated Training Manual, a Uniform Plumbing Code Answers and Analysis Manual, Pipe Sizing Calculators for Drain, Waste and Vent Sizing, Water Pipe Sizing and Fuel Gas Pipe sizing, along with other supplementary supportive material to assist in properly using the Uniform Plumbing Code. Similar publications have also been developed to coordinate with the Uniform Mechanical Code.
4. Provide to ANY user, inspector, plumber or mechanical installer, interpretations of the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing or Mechanical Codes.
5. The 2000 and 2003 editions of the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, and all future editions will be published utilizing the open “American National Standards Institue” (ANSI) “consensus process.” This process allows and encourages anyone and everyone to participate in the amending and updating of the “Codes,” and all members have a voice and vote, if they choose to.
In closing, he reiterated the offer of IAPMO to provide a one-day seminar, and free
codes on both codes for the inspectors.
Commissioner Highberger asked what IAPMO interest was in having the codes adopted by Lawrence.
Christensen said Lawrence is one of the major cities in Kansas and that is good. He was hopeful the State Legislature will consider a state code.
Lee Queen, Code Review Committee, and Chairman of the Building Code Board of Appeals pointed out that he differs in opinion from a lot of people who have commented. The main thing he believed was missing was that 90% of the inspections done could be found in one book. The building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing would all be in one book. He asked what the percentage of inspections that are single family and duplex. He said that was what the board was assigned to do; to review the international residential code. He said his board was going to the international codes. The simplicity for every contractor of Single Family and Duplex of having one book the size of a Topeka phone book with a good code that is nationally recognized is very enticing to him as a builder. At least having those inspections in one book would be a benefit to him and the city. He said he had no problem if everyone reviewed the residential code and amended it to the same standards we have today and live with it. Most of these inspections should be accessed from one book.
Mayor Rundle said he’s been getting mixed reviews of that one book concept. Maybe it’s the difference between the International Residential and Building Code. He asked Queen if there were references that tie back to another code book.
Queen said most of that is on the commercial end of things. In a perfect world these would be in one book. Two separate books make things more difficult and allow for more problems. The International Residential Code would have less things that don’t mesh than when you get into commercial construction. Commercial issues deal with a lot more things that Single Family and Duplex construction don’t involve.
Mayor Rundle asked if the International Residential Code has any references back to the International Plumbing code.
Queen said only for residential construction. There may be references to the International Mechanical Code.
Frank Lewis, Lawrence Plumbing Board, said the votes were all unanimous. If the Commission was going to take a step, make it forward and not backwards.
Commissioner Dunfield asked Lewis if in his view the Uniform Plumbing code was a code in which he was more familiar and also if updating to the latest version of the Uniform Plumbing code would better serve you the tradesman and the consuming public.
Lewis said yes.
Mayor Rundle asked for commission discussion. He said there has been an idea for having a study session on this and asked whether Commissioners were interested in that.
Commissioner Schauner said he didn’t think that was a good idea. He said he had a real bias on the issue. His brother has been a building inspector in Wichita for 15yrs. His father was an electrician for 35yrs. He had the distinct impression that his dad knew what codes worked, what was best for the inspector and the consumer. In his view, if the tradesman on these advisory boards, through a unanimous vote, should take priority over a blended code. The Commission should honor the in-the-field-knowledge these tradesman possess. He didn’t think anyone else, especially this Commission, was working with these tools every day, except for those people on those advisory boards. He did not want a study session. He thought the Commission should move forward with the advisory committee’s recommendations.
Commissioner Hack asked if Schauner was looking at option three.
Commissioner Schauner said yes. He said there will be more work to do with respect to ordinance adoption later on, but that is the nature of the beast. In the perfect world, there would be one code book. It’s anything but a perfect world. He doesn’t want to question the knowledge of these tradesmen.
Commissioner Dunfield said the difficulty with accepting the unanimous recommendation of two boards denies the unanimous recommendation of a third board. The Building Code Board of Appeals prefers the residential code because it combines all of those mechanical, electrical, plumbing and building aspects into a single code. He said the Building Code Board believed this would streamline their issues in one and two family dwellings and the inspections that take place there. He said he understood the trades but the Commission can’t satisfy both sides. He was convinced that if the City does adopt blended codes, there are going to be more mistakes and it would be harder on design professionals. There are going to be conflicts with the interpretation of the codes. He was convinced if we do that, the next time we’ll be adopting the international codes. He was most concerned that the city get up to date by adopting contemporary codes. If blended codes helps for the moment, he was willing to do this but he said we will be addressing this issue in the near future.
Commissioner Highberger wanted to see that their action protected the consumers as much as possible; makes it as easy as possible to work with the tradespeople; that it’s easy as possible for city staff to inspect, and is not an undue burden for designers. He wanted a study session. He said he did not have enough information to make an informed decision. He believed there are hidden agendas he’s not hearing about. He doesn’t understand why some of the conflict is there. He agreeed with pondering the wisdom of the tradesmen and also agreed with the current trends.
Commissioner Schauner believed the study session would contain exactly the same as what was heard tonight. Commisioner Dunfield was right. No matter what decision we make, everyone will not be happy. He shared the concern for the consumer. The consensus of these boards’ voting indicated we should agree with their decisions. Maybe this commission or future commissions will address this issue. The commission should move forward with option three.
Commissioner Highberger said he would move forward for the consensus of the Commission but he still had concerns.
Commissioner Hack asked if the action would be to put this on a future agenda in an ordinance form so if we did have concerns we might be able to ge more information. She said the Commission received a lot of information tonight and a study session is not necessary. She echoed Commissioner Schauner’s approval of option three. She said the City needs to move ahead. The Commission needed to move forward in the right direction with something on paper.
Commissioner Dunfield said the city should stay current by moving up to the 2003 codes. We will have plenty of time to get more information if we desire. He wanted to remind everyone that these are the minimum standards.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the commission moved forward with option three, would ordinances be brought back to the Commission at a later date.
Wildgen said yes, they are all adopted by ordinance.
Commissioner Highberger asked if any other Commissioners had concerns with the Uniform Plumbing Code versus Uniform Mechanical Code and the difficulties identified by staff in terms of blending the UMC with the IRC as opposed to the UPC in the fact that only one other jurisdiction attempted to blend those in Kansas.
Mayor Rundle said that is something we can toss back to staff to look at and see where the references are and how difficult it would be.
Christensen said they have developed a blended ordinance that they would be happy to share with the city.
Mayor Rundle asked if it would be necessary to bring these four together because the International Residential Code and International Plumbing Code because there is no longer a Uniform Building Code. He asked if it was possible to do these in steps where we adopted the Uniform Mechanical and Plumbing Code and attempt to tie these together.
Corliss said to the extent that they are not directly related. He said they can do them in steps. If the International Residential Code is going to be amended with blended references to the uniform codes we’ll have to make sure that’s appropriate. But something like the electrical code, that could proceed separately. He said staff would probably come back with four ordinances for Commission consideration. Staff also wanted to make sure the trade boards had an opportunity to see the ordinances too.
Commissioner Dunfield asked what the four ordinances would be.
Corliss said as he understood it, they would be an ordinance adopting the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code, the 2003 Uniform Mechanical Code, the 2003 International Residential Code, and the 2002 National Electric Code. All of those with the local amendments. They would be free standing ordinances.
Commissioner Highberger asked how the blending would be accomplished.
Corliss said within those three ordinances. We need to look at this blended ordinance and see what it attempted to do.
Commissioner Dunfield said he would support this option in the interest to move these codes forward. The concern he had was the Building Code Board will have to back track on the International Residential Code which will further delay getting the International Building Code before the Commission. He wanted to do this in such a way that that doesn’t happen. It’s the International Building Code where we are the farthest behind and in the most desperate need of updating. He asked that in the review process the building code not be set back.
Commissioner Highberger said we don’t want to set them back 6-9 months.
Commissioner Rundle said any advice we can get on that would be most appreciated.
Queen said the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals presently just reviewed the International Residential Code for adoption. We have to go back and create a draft, a process that will probably take a couple months. We have not reviewed the International Building Code. When we adopt the International Codes, we’ll have to amend for the Uniform Codes. This will be a lengthy process. We still have to draft those ordinances. So 6-9 months would be somewhat optimistic. With the Uniform Plumbing Board, they looked at the International Plumbing Code and International Residential Code they marked items for review, but they have not drafted any ordinance language. I think we’re optimistic if we do these codes concurrently because they are going to take quite some time.
Commissioner Highberger said the Commission needed to address the International Energy Code.
Corliss said there was a minor issue with the Plumbing Code Board’s recommendation on the question Mr. Schumm brought to the commission on cast iron pipe. He asked whether the Commission wanted to go ahead with that amendment now before we do the other amendments.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt option 3 in Staff’s memo to adopt the codes as recommended by the Trade Boards, identify the affects on other codes and amend through local ordinances as needed. Aye: Hack, Schauner, and Rundle. Nay: Dunfield and Highberger. Motion carried.
Commissioner Dunfield said he voted against the motion because of what it will do to the process.
Commissioner Highberger said the commission needed to address chapter 11 of the Energy Code.
Mayor Rundle said there is something coming to the Commission next week on that issue.
Wildgen concurred.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if the Plumbing Code Board would consider the International Code’s method of counting fixtures requirements.
Commissioner Highberger said he meant no disrespect by his decision. He said he was just concerned by the delays and the difficulties of implementing the blended codes and the possibility of having to go through this process again. (16)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
During Commission Items, Commissioner Dunfield said regarding the tornado discussion from the last meeting, he felt his comments were a little unclear. It sounded like all the Commissioners were interested in storm shelters for multi family construction. He said although he was not ready to endorse mandates in the area, he would like to learn more about that subject. He talked about broadening the discussion beyond that. What he was really thinking of was in terms of more public education. He doesn’t think the city should amend the code for wind speeds, but he does think the city would do the community a service by making them more aware of what different types of shelters are out there, the costs, what the relative degree of protection and so on. If we can take in providing that education, he thinks that would be a good thing.
Commissioner Highberger asked that the Parks and Recreation Board to take a look at the P&R Master Plan that refers neighborhood parks. He was concerned that the Master Plan only called for neighborhood parks with a half mile service radius. He thought given the information on walkability, the board should consider more smaller neighborhood parks for a smaller service radius.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger to recess at 8:00 pm to an executive session for 10 minutes to discuss matters deemed privileged under the attorney/client privilege. Motion passed unanimously.
The Commission reconvened in regular session at 8:10 p.m.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. MACPP Bid – Cab & Chassis truck for Public Works from KCR Int’l Truck for $50,674.
2. Bid – CBX Parts & Maintenance for various depts. To United Asset Coverage for $24,598.
3. Bid Date Set – March 15 for Folks, 6th to Harvard, street, storm sewer, waterline improvements.
4. Bid Date Set – March 15 for 2004 misc storm sewer improvements.
5. Ordinance 7823 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-06-22-04) 1.058 acres, A to RS-2, 704 Folks Rd.
6. Ordinance No. 7833 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-07-30-04) 1.029 acres, A to RS-2, E side of Folks, S of W 6th.
7. Ordinance No. 7859 – 2nd Read, annex 5.782 acres, E 23rd for turn lane on E 23rd at O’Connell.
8. Resolution No. 6578 – Agreement with KDOT, 6th, Arkansas to Mass. (KLINK)
9. Site Plan – (SP-11-82-04) 2 story office bldg, 1045 E 23rd.
10. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-04-02-04) Auto Exchange, .57 acres, SW corner of 33rd & Iowa.
11. Mortgage Release – 1226 Conn, Aaron Blosser
12. Mortgage Release – 615 Utah Ct, Patricia Fox.
13. Subordination Agreement – 2708 Rawhide, Retha Beebe.
14. Close Various Streets – Lawrence Convention & Visitor’s Bureau for Criteriuim Bicycle Race.
15. City Manager’s Report
16. Building Code Recommendations.