February 24th, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice Chairperson, John Craft, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
GUESTS PRESENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Officio |
|
Adrian Jones, Structural Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Queen called the meeting to order at 4:06 pm.
Correspondence
Memorandum and attachments from Victor Torres Neighborhood to Adrian Jones directing the Building Code Board review the use of wood shake shingles.
Approval of February 10th , 2005 minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes.
Smalter wanted the minutes to reflect that her statement concerning continuing education should state that she questioned what “ types” of continuing education was acceptable to the Contractor Licensing Board.
Craft wanted to make a statement that was apart from approval of the minutes. He expressed some concerns that the contractor licensing fee would go up after a few years.
Queen stated that the fee was based on $135 to Johnson County for training and $65 to the City for administration of the program. The $65 was a good faith estimate. He thought the cost to run the program would go down. The only variable would be if the Johnson County program raised their fees. It was understood by all that this was never to be a money making venture by the City. It was a breakeven proposition where contractor licensing we add credibility to the building trade.
Smalter moved to approve the minutes as amended. Stogsdill seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
Discuss the use of wood shake shingles
The Board reviewed the memorandum and attachments from Victor Torres Director of Neighborhood Resources.
Queen stated he understood that the problem is the requirements for use of wood shakes are part of a neighborhood covenant. Covenants are a legal document that you agree to when you purchase the property. If a property owner does not want shakes shingles, he or she could go to something more expensive or more aesthetically pleasing such as concrete tile, clay tile or standing seam roof.
Stogsdill stated that another issue is the ongoing litigation with the City of Shawnee. Shawnee enacted an ordinance prohibiting the use of shake shingles.
Queen stated that it is his understanding that wood shakes were the minimum for most covenants. A homeowner could use other roof coverings as long as it is approved by the architects committee.
Jones stated that typically when the Building Inspections staff receives calls concerning issues regulated by neighborhood covenants, staff responds that unless there is a code violation, the City does not enforce neighborhood covenants.
Queen stated that it then becomes the neighborhood association’s responsibility to take legal action to enforce its own rules.
Porter stated that the Uniform Building Code does not prohibit the use of wood shake shingles.
Queen stated that the person who brought forth this issue probably wants to use composition shingles. He probably wants the Board to say that wood shakes are a fire hazard. He stated that the board could most likely agree that shakes are more susceptible to fire. These types of issues should be examined more closely when home owners are signing a contract to buy a home. Queen suggested highlighting the covenants and asking if the person live with them.
Craft stated that the owner probably read the covenants but now disagrees with them. Instead of trying to change his neighborhood covenant, he is trying to change the whole city.
Porter stated that a number of homeowner associations have changed the covenants requiring wood shakes. His own association has changed its covenant in regards to wood shakes.
Stogsdill stated that most of the new associations do not require shakes. Stogsdill thought that the petitioner needs to try a different venue for his concerns. He should go back and try to get his association to change its covenants.
The Board drafted the following recommendation to the City Commission regarding the use of wood shake shingles in the City of Lawrence:
“The Building Code Board of Appeals realizes that there are inherent reasons against the use of wood shake shingles, but the Board can see no reason based on review of the Code to recommend amending the code to prohibit use of wood shake shingles in the City of Lawrence.”
Porter moved to approve the recommendation regarding the use of wood shake shingles. Smalter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
IRC Review and IBC review
Jones advised the Board that the IRC draft ordinance is not completed for the Board to review.
Stogsdill asked for sufficient time to review the report before the next meeting.
Jones stated the report would be forwarded to the Board after Staff review is complete. The board could then schedule a meeting.
Craft asked about the issue of storm shelters. The Board reviewed previous discussions concerning storm shelters.
Queen stated for the record, he is very disappointed that the Mayor thought that the Board did not give the issue of storm shelters a fair review, and the board is not a well-rounded enough group to have a discussion on the issue. The Mayor thought that Queen, as a homebuilder and a member of the Homebuilder Association only concern is cost. Queen stated that Board members also in attendance could attest to the fact that he addressed other issues, not just cost.
Jones stated the IRC draft should be completed within 30 days.
Porter stated that he thought that the 97 UBC- 2003 IBC transition report could be used as a template for review of the IBC. The board briefly discussed the pervious review of the IBC.
Smalter expressed her concerns that there are no commercial contractors on the Board who would be using the IBC and could provide input during review. Smalter suggested that the Board have someone address the Board concerning the IBC.
Stogsdill stated that Jay Woodward from ICC is very knowledgeable and had previously addressed the Board.
Queen stated that the big changes in the IBC are egress and fire rated construction. He added that installing sprinklers substituted for many of the current code provisions. Stogsdill suggested staff research if other jurisdictions there were any issues that other jurisdictions experienced problems in transitioning from the UBC to the IBC.
Jones suggested he could review ordinances from local jurisdictions. He stated that most other jurisdictions adopted the 2000 version of the IBC. If there were any concerns, then those would be reflected in amendments to the adoption of the 2003 IBC.
Smalter stated that in her experiences with the IBC there are significant differences.
Stogsdill added that one glaring example of real world difference he has seen, and what the Board had discussed previously, is the design of townhouses. Those are the types of the issues the Board would want to focus on. Jones stated that he is increasingly working with contractors who have experience building under the IBC and IRC. They use the same design to build in Lawrence. The design of duplexes under the IRC require 1-hr structurally independent walls, which extend to the roof deck.
Smalter asked if there is any more information on storm shelters. Jones stated that he has not received any information from Torres.
Queen stated the information he received from the Journal World is that the issue with installing storm shelters in apartment complexes still exists.
Stogsdill thought that some jurisdictions may require storm shelters in mobile home parks. Stogsdill stated that the requirement for storm shelters in apartment complexes is a complete discussion on to itself. How many units should be in the complex before a storm shelter would be required?
Smalter stated that she designed a complex in Missouri, which had no requirement for storm shelters.
The Board briefly discussed the pending deletion of the amendment to the Plumbing ordinance requiring cast iron in commercial construction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Stogsdill moved to adjourn. Smalter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
The meeting adjourned 4:58 p.m.