City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

December 1st, 2005 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter John craft

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

Barry Walthall Codes Enforcement Manager

 

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones,  Structural Inspector

 

 

 

 

Correspondence

- Copy of TUPR-06-20-04

 

Chairperson Queen called the meeting to order at 11:59 a.m.

 

Temporary Structures

The Board reviewed the sample TUPR to determine what items were inspected by the Fire Department.

 

Jones stated that he did not have time to research the topic in depth. He said he spoke to a code official from Overland Park. In their city, the Fire Department checks tent type structures that are erected for less than 180 days. Their system of checks is similar to the City of Lawrence. They check to make sure that the structure is properly secured and there is adequate exiting. They also check tent material and fire extinguishers. 

 

Stogsdill stated that felt comfortable with the inspection process and number of inspection items checked by the fire department.  He wanted to make sure that the City had a system in place to protect the public from structural failure.

 

The consensus of the Board was that there were adequate checks in place to ensure tent and membrane structures were properly inspected.

 

Appendices

The Board reviewed the appendices for adoption.

 

Porter stated that Appendix A Employee Qualifications and Appendix B Board of Appeals were covered by City Code. The Board decided not to adopt Appendix A Employee Qualifications and Appendix B Board of Appeals.  

 

The Board discussed Appendix C Agriculture buildings.  

 

Porter stated that the appendix should be adopted.

 

Smalter agreed adding that there were buildings in the City which met the definition of agriculture buildings.

 

Walthall stated that Agriculture buildings would not be approved in the city limits. He stated that Appendix C would be a supplement to group U. The provisions of group U would apply.

 

Stogsdill stated that it was his understanding the City Commission intended to annex some urban growth areas into the city.  Some agriculturally zoned areas may be included.  

 

Stogsdill noted that Table C102 limited agricultural building to 12,000 square feet for type VB.

 

Walthall stated that his concern was that by adopting Appendix C a building permit applicant might assume that the Building Code might supercede the zoning ordinance.

 

Stogsdill asked if the City did not adopt Appendix C and an applicant wanted to build a large garden shed in their back yard, what type of occupancy would apply to the building?

 

Walthall replied type U.

 

Stogsdill asked what would be the difference between group U and the Appendix C.

 

Jones replied that group U limitation for type VA was 9,000 and VB was 5,000. The limitation for Appendix C Agricultural VA was 21,000 and VB 12,000.

 

Stogsdill noted that there was a big difference in size limitations.

 

Walthall he did not see a burning need to adopt this appendix. He did not see where the appendix would ever apply.  

 

Craft gave an example of the city annexing an area to the east which included Schaake’s Pumpkin Patch. If Schaake then wanted to build a building larger than 5,500 square feet what would he have to do?

 

Walthall replied he would have to do something to reduce the size of the building. He might have to sprinkle building.

 

Jones stated he would be allowed to increase the size under some circumstances that did not include fire sprinklers.

 

Porter stated that agriculture buildings uses included more than livestock.

 

Queen thought that the appendix should be adopted. It allowed more options for property owners.

 

Porter noted that not having the appendix would be a waste of resources because agricultural use buildings would have to be overbuilt to the commercial U type requirements.

 

Craft said no one knew the future boundaries of the City.

 

The consensus was to adopt the Appendix C Agricultural Buildings.

 

There was a brief discussion on Appendix D.

 

Walthall stated that as areas were annexed into the City it was incumbent on the City to provide fire protection.

 

Jones stated that in discussions with the Fire Marshall fire zones and fire districts would be regulated by the Firecode. The Board decided not to adopt Appendix D Fire Districts

 

The Board discussed Appendix E.

 

Smalter asked what was the difference between ADAAG and Appendix E. 

 

Jones stated that requirements in Appendix E were referenced from the ADAAG requirements.

 

Porter stated that if the ADAAG requirements and Appendix E did not conflict why adopt the appendix.

 

Jones stated that by adopting the appendix it gives users of the code a reference source for the ADAAG requirements.

 

Porter said his concern was that a user would only rely on the code and not refer to the complete ADAAG requirements.

 

The Board consensus was to adopt Appendix E Supplementary Accessibility Requirements.

 

The Board discussed F Rodent Proofing. The Board consensus was that pest control would be best controlled by local pest control contractors and not mandated by City standards. There was not a significant rodent problem in the City of Lawrence.

 

Porter stated that the IBC was a national Code and the requirements were probably intended for areas with a rodent infestation problems.

 

Queen stated that he has never heard of rodent problems due to construction methods.   

 

The consensus was not to adopt Appendix F Rodent Proofing.

 

The Board discussed Appendix G Flood-Resistant Construction.

 

Walthall stated that the requirements for construction in flood zones was covered in the zoning ordinance.  

The consensus was to not adopt Appendix G Flood Resistant Construction.

 

Walthall stated that Appendix H Signs were covered in the Sign ordinance.

 

The consensus was not to adopt Appendix H Signs

 

The Board discussed Appendix I Patio Covers. 

 

Jones stated that the patio cover appendix was adopted in the IRC.  The board discussed the design of outdoor smoking areas in Lawrence.

 

Stogsdill noted that the scope of the Appendix I was very limited in scope and for residential only.

 

The consensus of the Board was to adopt Appendix I Patio Covers.

 

The Board discussed Appendix J Grading.

 

Craft asked if the City had an ordinance to restrict the cutting of trees.  He stated that this appendix would be the closest to an ordinance of that type. Craft asked if the board wanted to address the cutting of trees.

 

Stogsdill replied that the Building Code addressed life safety issues. Trees would not be addressed in the code unless there was a safety issue involved.

 

Porter stated that if the City adopted this appendix it would be one more permit and required inspection.

 

Craft stated that this ordinance might prevent someone from removing trees and vegetation from flood areas. 

 

Craft gave an example of the trees and vegetation that were removed in a flood zone that might have been prevented had there been a permit required. 

 

Smalter noted the exemptions under J103.2 would allow a large scope of excavation projects to be completed without permits.

 

Jones noted that grading was allowed for site work for a construction project.

 

Porter gave the example of the Meadowbrook project. If there had not been a permit or site plan the owners of the property would have not been allowed to grade that site and change the topography without a grading permit.

 

Walthall noted that the site plan and building permit was approved before that site was graded.

Smalter noted that there are many instances in Lawrence where the site is graded before the permit is issued.

 

Jones asked if the existing ordinances would have prevented the owners of the Meadowbrook property from removing all the trees and vegetation?

 

Stogsdill stated there has to be some type of storm water regulation that would prevent grading of that type.  Stogsdill noted exemption J103.2.1 allows a property owner to strip the vegetation and flatten his or her lot if so desired.  

 

Craft countered that stripping vegetation and screening could adversely effect adjoining property by reducing the property value.

 

Porter noted there was no code language concerning trees. He would argue that this appendix should be adopted if the City is going to annex land in the future where possibility of grading could be detrimental.  He added that the area north and west of the City is mostly hills.          

 

Walthall stated that there is a concern of the ability of staff to enforce this section.

 

Queen said that he did not think the City currently had a problem with grading. He didn’t see why the Board would adopt this appendix to control a problem on property that may or may not be part of the City.

 

Jones stated that Codes Enforcement does on occasion receive calls from property owners where adjacent properties have been graded for landscaping and water diversion. This grading has caused water damage on adjacent properties.  The answer to these callers is that unless it is a drainage easement or a drainage way it’s primarily a civil issue between property owners. 

 

Jones stated that when he worked in Bonner Springs the City required grading permits. Bonner Springs had a large portion of land zoned agricultural. Grading had the potential to create costly problems for adjacent properties.

 

Porter said because of the topography in around the City and erosion problems the appendix makes sense.

 

Walthall stated that this would be an issue that would need a significant amount of study and review. As he sees it there are two options. One option is to bring this issue back for review at a later date where the Board can spend some time and study the issue in depth. This would ensure it achieves the desired results. The Board could proceed with the adoption of the rest of the code. The other option is to discuss the issue in detail at a separate meeting and adopt or amend the appendix and forward it to the City Commission. He would be in favor of putting it aside for now.

 

Queen stated the appendix seemed more aimed at larger projects.

 

Stogsdill gave an example of a property owner who raises the grade of his lot two feet. Is this scenario something that the City wants to control? In many instances building construction may be controlled by who got there first. A builder may want the elevation on his or her lot to be higher and he adversely effects the adjacent property.  If one property is 3 -5 feet higher that any other properties. That one property will never get any water but all the surrounding properties will get all the runoff from one lot. Currently the neighbors will have to sue the offending property owner because there are no regulations in place to prevent this type of grading. Grading restrictions may prevent these types of issues.  

 

Queen stated that the Board needs to look at the residential code to see if there are any grading restrictions.

 

Smalter moved to adjourn, seconded by Porter. Motion passed 5-0

 

Meeting adjourned 1:23 p.m.