September 1st, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GUESTS PRESENT: |
|
Victor Torres - Director Neighborhood Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Officio |
|
Adrian Jones, Structural Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Queen called the meeting to order at 4:10p.m.
Porter made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Smalter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
The Board reviewed the minutes of May 19th, 2005. Craft apologized to the Board for his absence from the 19th meeting. Craft asked what was the outcome of the discussion on the existing basement egress bedroom windows.
Jones stated that he spoke with Torres concerning existing basement bedrooms. He stated that he advised Torres that the Board had requested input from the City legal department on enforcement of existing bedroom. Jones explained the scenario to Torres that the board wanted clarification. The current ordinance requires that any sleeping room, new or existing, in a basement requires a code complaint egress window. If an inspector is in an existing home for a issue not associated with egress windows and discovers a non-code compliant sleeping room, is the inspector required to issue a notice or citation. Jones said that he explained to Torres that it was his understanding in these situations inspectors typically notified the owner that basement sleeping rooms require egress windows. Only in situations where it is a minimum housing inspection do the inspectors write violation notices for existing non-compliant sleeping rooms. Jones stated that Torres has directed staff to issue violation notices for non-complaint sleeping rooms in existing homes.
Queen stated that during the last meeting there was a question of foundation wall inspections that had not been clarified. Jones stated that he thought the Board cleared that issue.
Queen stated that issue should be addressed but did not have any bearing on approval of the minutes.
Porter made a motion to approve the minutes. Smalter seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
Review of IRC Draft Ordinance
Jones stated that Barry Walthall Code Enforcement Manager asked that all references to City Code chapters be removed from the draft. He stated that all code references would be inserted when the ordinance was reviewed and codified.
Jones stated that Table 301.2 includes the design criteria for this geographic area.
Queen stated that according the code Lawrence is in the 90 mph wind zone. Jones asked if the table input value was the fastest mile or 3 second gust.
Queen asked if a garage door would have to withstand 90 mph or 75 mile mph. He stated that Johnson County requires garage doors to withstand 90mph. That would be a big change for Lawrence.
Porter stated that on page 24, Table 301.2.1 , Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria note E, the value should be 90mph.
Jones stated that he would change the value.
Craft asked if there was another option on the original draft for compliance with the energy code. Craft asked if Rescheck produced a score to indicate compliance.
Queen stated that Rescheck provided the structure with a number. The software required that that number equal or exceed a certain threshold. The builder could adjust insulation values, window types, or the efficiency of the furnace to meet that threshold.
Porter stated that in the original draft there was an “or” after each compliance method. Smalter stated that number 5 was deleted, and the extra “or” after number 4 should be deleted.
Jones stated that the final portion of the draft deletes the mechanical, electrical and plumbing portion of the IRC.
Craft asked where the other trades were in regards to the IRC.
Jones stated that he made a presentation to the Mechanical Board of Appeals last night summarizing the report on the issues and problems in coordinating the blended codes. Jones stated that the main point of his report was that there were no ventilation requirements in the Uniform Mechanical Code(UMC). Other jurisdictions have recognized these problems with the 2003 UMC. No other local jurisdiction, including those jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Plumbing Code(UPC), has adopted the 2003 UMC. Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri have adopted the UPC but not the UMC. Jones stated that if the City adopted the International Building Code (IBC), International Fire Code (IFC), and the UMC there would be serious gaps and omissions that would have to be corrected be heavily amending the IBC and IFC. Jones stated that he pointed out to the board that IAPMO has recognized these problems with the 2003 UMC and has proposed changes in the 2006 edition. He stated there were representatives from IAPMO at the meeting. After his presentation one of the IAPMO representatives addressed the board and agreed with Jones’ presentation. The IAPMO representative stated that the issues with ventilation would be corrected in the 2006 edition of the UMC.
Jones stated the Mechanical Board of Appeals suggested it’s board wait until the 2006 version UMC is published and adopt it. The Mechanical Board asked the IAPMO representative when the 2006 UMC was going to be out. The IAPMO Rep said that there would be a draft of the Code ready by December of this year. It would not be the official code but the Mechanical Board could review the draft, get official training on it, and could vote to approve it. When the official code was published if there were no changes then the City could adopt the code right away. Jones stated that the IAPMO representatives could not guarantee delivery of the draft in December. IAPMO’s website indicated that the Code would be published in February of 2006.
Jones stated that the Mechanical Board asked what the timetable was for the Building Code Board to complete it’s review of the IBC. Jones stated that he explained to the Mechanical Board that the Building Board had begun preliminary work on review of the IBC. It was his opinion that the Building Board would complete it’s work in two months. The mechanical Board requested that the Building Board delay it’s review or adoption of the 2003 IBC until the Mechanical Board could completes it’s review of the 2006 UMC.
Craft asked if there was a lot of confusion regarding the blending of the Codes. Jones stated that he didn’t think there was much confusion within the tradesmen. There was so little difference between the UMC and the IMC after local amendments, a person could not tell the difference in a residential installation. Furnace location, ductwork, gas piping were all similar. There were slight differences in residential plumbing installation, in that the vent sizing was different. There was no confusion with the inspection staff. Inspectors work with and study the codes on a daily basis and are familiar with the issues.
Jones stated that the larger problem is that the City of Lawrence is so far behind on the adopted codes. Plans are often rejected because the are submitted under the International Codes. Plans are returned and designers are asked to resubmit under the Uniform Codes. This is costly to applicants and creates a tremendous amount of delay in the permitting process.
Jones stated he informed the Mechanical Board of the sentiments of the Building Board in that any mechanical amendments to the IBC would have to be drafted by the Mechanical Board. Jones also stated that his concern with the request by the Mechanical Board is that it proposes to review a draft of the proposed 2006 UMC and not the actual published document.
Queen asked what was the status of contractor licensing. Queen stated that apparently there had been a change of heart and that the trades are now going to want in on the contractor licensing ordinance because of the mandatory state training requirement. Queen stated that the training through the City would be under the I-Codes and then they would work under the U-Codes.
Jones stated that last night the Mechanical Board voted to “reenter” contractor licensing ordinance. The other Boards had already opted back into the ordinance. The Mechanical Board reasoning was that if there was a contractors licensing board the Mechanical Board would not have any representation on that Board.
Jones stated that he read on both IAPMA and ICC web sites news releases that the two code organizations had entered into talks to jointly develop plumbing and mechanical codes.
Stogsdill stated he was confused as to why the Mechanical Board wanted the Building Board to hold up on code adoption. He stated that the Building Board was going to move forward. He stated that it’s the Mechanical Board needs to make the adjustments.
Jones stated that as long as the City was under the Uniform Building Code there was no conflict between the codes. As soon as the City adopted the IBC or IFC then there would be conflicts.
Stogsdill stated that the Board has already completed the IRC so there might be some conflict there.
Jones stated that there were not many ventilation requirements or references to the IMC in the building portion of the IRC.
Queen stated that it boggles his mind as to why the Mechanical Board could not just adopt the IRC. There was really no difference in the codes. Everyone could work under one Code.
Jones stated that the Mechanical Board would like a response from this board regarding delay of the IBC.
Queen asked if the Mechanical Board would have a code to review in December.
Smalter replied that they would have a draft of a Code.
Queen stated that if the Mechanical Board had a draft in December. The Building Code Board would complete it’s work in two months. That puts completion of the IBC to December.
Porter stated that based on the Boards experience with the IRC he did not anticipate a lengthy process in adopting the IBC.
Jones stated that the process in reviewing the IBC would be different than the IRC. The IRC was basically writing a new ordinance. The IBC would be amending the existing 1997 UBC ordinance. The process should move along much more quickly. The process of reviewing the technical differences between the two codes would be the most time consuming aspect of drafting the ordinance adopting the IBC. Jones stated that based on previous board discussion he anticipated few if any additional amendments.
Stogsdill suggested that a four month timetable for adoption was reasonable. Jones thought it would be much sooner.
Queen stated that he thought the board should proceed as originally planned, and not delay its timetable for adoptions.
Jones stated that it was his understanding that the Commission would like the Board to proceed directly to the Energy Code.
Smalter stated that she did not understand why the Mechanical Board wanted the Building code Board to delay.
Queen replied that if the Building Board adopted the IBC the Mechanical Board would have to make a bunch of amendments to coordinate the codes.
Porter stated that he believes the Building Board should advise the Mechanical Board that it is going to recommend adopting the IBC with some amendments.
Craft stated that the Mechanical Board could adopt the International Mechanical Code.
Queen stated that it is no question that the City is adopting the IBC. The issue is with what amendments.
Smalter stated that she believes that the board should recommend adoption of the IBC along with the IMC.
Stogsdill asked if it would make a difference if the Board, due to the conflicts with the IBC, made a recommendation to the commission that the City adopt the I-Family of Codes, other than simply making a statement.
Porter agreed.
Stogsdill stated that blending of the Codes has already wreaked havoc with the IRC. He believes the other Boards can review the IRC as easily as the Building Board.
Craft stated that the Mechanical Board has asked the Building Board to delay. The Board has been asked to respond. In the past the Building Code Board has resisted from commenting, but since the Board has been asked to respond lets respond and recommend adoption of the I-Codes. If he reads between the lines, by adopting the IBC it throws a lot of pressure on the Mechanical Board.
Queen stated that he believes the Board should finish its assignment of the IRC today, move onto the IBC and when the board is finished, it’s finished. If it takes two months, four months or six months the Board has to complete this code and move on. If the Mechanical Board is not completed then they will have to deal with it at that time.
Jones stated that the ventilation issues has to be addressed.
Queen asked if the Building Board adopts the IBC in December, and the Mechanical Board does not have anything to mesh with it, will the Mechanical Board at that time have to make all the amendments?
Jones stated if the Building Board presents a draft ordinance to commission for approval, The Board will have to wait until the Mechanical Board receives a copy of the draft of the 2006 in December as promised by the IAPMO. The Mechanical Board will have to review the 2006 UMC for any local amendments, review the ventilation requirements to determine if there any gaps in code provisions. Then recommend amendments to the Building Code Board and the Fire Code Board. Both Building and Fire will have to review those proposed amendments. The IAPMO web site says the expected printing date of the 2006 UMC is February 2006. The draft submitted by the board will have to be revised.
Queen stated that the Building Code Board was doing what the Commission requested it to do which was to review the I-Codes.
Porter suggested to amend the draft ordinance to remove the section deleting the mechanical, electrical and plumbing sections from the IRC. He stated that the board was asked to review the building portion of the IRC and the board has determined that the City should adopt the whole code. Why should the Building Code Board recommend removing those sections.
Jones stated that the board has to address the ventilation issues at some time.
Stogsdill stated that the IBC refers to the IMC for ventilation requirements, but there is no IMC at this time. This creates a huge problem. Stogsdill stated that reviewing mechanical requirements is not in his area of expertise.
Queen stated that this is exactly what Jones, Torres and everyone else told the City commission that night, that the codes did not mesh.
Craft asked Torres if there were any problems with the mechanical portion of the IRC. He stated that the IRC draft deleted the mechanical portion of the IRC, but that wasn’t because the board had a problem with that section. We were deleting these section basically out of a courtesy to the Mechanical Board.
Queen stated that the Mechanical board declined to review the mechanical portion of the IRC and the City Commission told them that they were not required to. The City Commission asked the Building Board to review the I-Codes and recommend it with amendments. Now the Board has all of these provisions that do not mesh. Queen asked Torres is it the Building Boards responsibility to amend the IBC and IRC 30 or 40 times because the Mechanical Board will not review the IMC?
Torres stated that the Building Board should identify those issues and forward them to the Mechanical Board.
Queen stated that Jones has done that in his report that was presented to the Mechanical Board last night.
Jones stated that the Building board cannot complete it’s work until the issues have been resolved with the mechanical portions of the I-Codes.
Torres stated that if the Building Board is still reviewing the IBC in March of next year this may be a moot issues assuming that the 2006 UMC is published by that date and assuming that the ventilation issues have been resolved as promised.
Queen asked Torres about a delay.
Torres stated that this issue was discussed in the Staff meeting this morning. He stated that the board should not delay it’s review of the IBC or IRC. He stated that Commission is anxious to get the new codes adopted for a number of reasons. Torres said he informed the City Manager that the
Building Board was going to approve the draft of the IRC at this meeting which would essentially adopt an Energy Code for residential construction. Torres stated the Board should not hold off or wait because a blended code would be a problem. Torres stated that if the Board has completed it’s review in November then the blended code issue will have to resolved at that time. Torres also informed the Board that he has presented the City Manager with a report outlining the blended code issues which will be forwarded to the Commission this week.
Torres stated that the City Manager was interested in any ideas that could expedite the review process. He asked the board if it was possible to meet two times per month. Torres stated that the city appreciates the Board willingness to give up time for these meetings.
Porter asked if the mechanical, electrical and plumbing sections were deleted from the IRC draft , would residential construction be covered in the Uniform Codes.
Queen replied that it was.
Craft stated there were conflicts between the IRC plumbing section and the UPC. He stated that PEX water line and air admittance valves are included in the IRC. What about the other sections?
Queen stated that those provisions were included in the UPC, but the board amended them out.
Jones stated that there are no conflicts with the Electrical Code.
Queen asked if it was the duty of the Building Board to delete the trade sections of the IRC.
Porter stated that the Board has reviewed it’s portion of the IRC. The other chapters are not within the scope of the Board. Porter stated that he does not see any valid reason to delete chapters 13 through 41.
Craft stated that the Board should amend the draft.
Porter said the board should say that there are references to chapters 13 through 41 in the Building portion of the IRC. Since these sections are referenced they should stay, but since they fall within another boards prevue then that board should review those sections.
Stogsdill stated that potentially there is the same problem with the IRC as would be with the IBC. If the issues are not resolved then references to chapters 13 through 41 would reference a code that might conflict with other adopted codes. The other boards should review the latter sections and make recommendations on amendments to the IRC. If those issues have not been resolved the City would not have a complete Code.
The Board reviewed the building portion of the IRC and determined that there are approximately 10 to 15 references in the building portion of the IRC that references chapters 13 through 41.
Stogsdill stated that the Board should recommend that the commission adopt the entire IRC, but the Board has not reviewed those latter chapters.
Porter added that the Board should recommend that those sections be reviewed and adopted.
Craft stated that the International Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes are referenced as part of the IRC.
Queen stated that would put the Boards back to square one again. The other Boards are going to argue that their codes are better and the city can get along fine with a blended set of codes. The reason the City is in this dilemma is that the Commission reneged on it’s original statement. The Code Review Committee worked for a year to get to the point where the commission directed the Boards to go with the I-Codes. The duty of the Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Boards was to review the IRC. It was not their job to argue about which book they were to review. They were told to review the IRC and come up with the necessary amendment to make it suitable for the City of Lawrence. They refused and got the City Commission to change it’s vote and allow a blended code. So now it’s the Building Code’s responsibility to clean up this mess.
The Board discussed footing and wall inspections.
Stogsdill asked if the accessibility provisions for four of more dwelling units was regulated in the IRC.
Jones stated that four or more town homes could be part of one structure.
Stogsdill suggested making a motion to adopt the IRC chapters 1- 11. The Board would recommend adopting chapters 12-41 after review.
Queen stated that he believes that putting it back to the Plumbing and Mechanical Board will not result in any change.
Craft stated that the board could make a recommendation to adopt the entire code.
Jones stated that ultimately the final decision is up to the Commission. They weigh the recommendations of the different Boards and determine which option or code is best for the City of Lawrence. If the Board made a recommendation to adoption the I-Family of Codes. that recommendation, along with the recommendation of the Code Committee and staff should be considered.
Porter stated that as a Board they should recommend adoption of the International Codes. As a Board we don’t have a reason to say that one plumbing code is better than another code.
This seems to be an integrated Code. The portion the Board is recommending does reference other Codes.
Janet Smalter moved that the draft be amended to remove the statements deleting chapters 12 through 41 from the IRC. Craft seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
Porter moved to adopt the IRC as amended. Smalter seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Porter moved to adjourn. Queen seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
The meeting adjourned 5:40 p.m.