Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 06/18/2019 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JUNE 18, 2018 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at 4:00 p.m., June 18, 2018, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Building Bo ard of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Brad Heemstra, Brad Sydnes, Andrew Mott, and David Carnes. Dan Nutini and Nathan Werstein were absent. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert, Ryan Cable, and Vicki Feilmeyer. Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Cormicle to approve the minutes of May 7, 2018 Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Old Business None New Business A. Appeal of the 2015 International Mechanical Code, Section 502.20 Manicure and pedicure stations at 546 Main Street 103 by Bi Ayers, Pro Nails Appellant, Bi Ayers, of Pro Nails presented his appeal. Pro Nails had been at the same location for seven years, but was recently forced to move to a new location. The move was unexpected, unplanned, and unbudgeted. Ayers was not aware of the requirements of Section 502.20 that applied to the new location, but he researched it once he was made aware of it. Ayers said he abides by all the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology and has never had a complaint about his business. It is his opinion that Section 502.20 does not apply to his business because he does not use hazardous products or chemicals or products that have strong odors. The code is trying to solve a problem that does not exist and is not necessary at his salon. Pro Nails uses mostly organic products. He eliminated acrylic nails years ago because of the health risk. His wife works at the salon all day and he would not allow her to work there if it was an unsafe environment. The previous location of Pro Nails did not have the exhaust systems because it had been a salon before he took over the space and it was grandfathered in. Ayers presented a stack of letters and testimonials from his clients vouching for his salon and stating there are no strong chemical odors. Ayers received three quotes for the exhaust systems which came in at approximately $23,000 per station. The cost to install the systems would put him out of business. Brad Heemstra asked about the origin of the code and if it still applies to today’s products and practices. Adam Ostert replied that it was a footnote to a table in 2012 and in 2015 it was moved from the table to the body of the code. As of 2015, all new salons are required to have a source capture system at all nail Page | 2 and pedicure stations, but it is not a retro-active requirement. Ryan Cable added that the code does not discuss specific products. Cormicle questioned if Alternative #2 to the Board applies based on the technology and products being used, “the current practices are enough to eliminate the need for the source capture system”. Brad Sydnes asked if there is any other exhaust in the building. Ayers replied that the HVAC system is the only exhaust system. Heemstra expressed that the testimonials and signatures are compelling, and there seems to be a disconnect between the code requirements and the actual practices. Ayers stated that his salon is extremely clean. They do not offer acrylic nails, which produce a lot of dust and do have a strong odor. They offer gel manicures. Their pedicures are done on wet nails, so they do not produce any dust. Polish removal is not filed off, so again, no dust. Ayers makes a point to stay on top of customer safety. His salon uses safer lights to dry nails and they use a steam sterilizer to prevent infection. If the exhaust systems were a valuable tool, he would have used them previously. Ayers added that the State Board of Cosmetology does not require source capture systems. Heemstra said the code seems to be out of sync with current practices, and questioned if changes in practices may cause changes in the code in the coming years. He then added that the Board is not able to take on each salon on a case by case basis and define the code in each individual situation. Vicki Feilmeyer pointed out that the basis for appeal is site specific not business specific. Brad Sydnes asked if the current Pro Nails location was previously a salon. Ayers replied that it had been an office space, and he had no prior intention of moving from his previous location to this space. Cormicle stated that an appellant could appeal again if facts and circumstances change. Heemstra summarized that the Board does not really have any alternatives in this situation. They do not have a modified version of the code because of existing building conditions. They cannot require one salon to have the exhaust systems, but then allow another salon to not have them. Unfortunately, the code does not specify the products used. Moved by Carnes, seconded by Sydnes, to deny the appeal Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously B. Appeal of the 2015 International Building Code, Section 706.1.1 Party walls at 2603 and 2605 Northridge Parkway by Ryan Friedrich with HCS Builders Brian Torresi with Davis Brown Law Firm presented the appeal. Also present were Brad Lenz, the landlord of 2603 Northridge Pkwy, and Ryan Friedrich from HCS Builders. Davis Brown Law Firm is located at 2605 Northridge Pkwy. One of their attorneys has an office in 2603. They would like to take Page | 3 over the front half of 2603 Northridge Pkwy to use as office space without having to have people come outside to go from one side to the other. The issue at hand is that the spaces are two separate parcels sharing a party wall and the code does not allow openings in a party wall. They want to install a 2-hour fire door between the spaces. Ryan Friedrich stated that both halves of the building are not sprinklered, but they do have a fire separation wall. They want to meet the intention of the code by installing a 2-hour fire door to connect the spaces, hoping that it will achieve the fire separation requirement. The door would always be closed, never propped open, and would possibly have an alarm system in place. Adam Ostert said that because the spaces share a property line, the code does not allow for an opening. As built, if the property line was not in place, both halves would meet the requirements for height and area. If it was one piece of property, there would be no issue. Friedrich added that exceptions to the code exist in mall anchor stores. Discussion was held about safety and the future needs of the space. Cormicle summarized that adding a fire rated entry between the two properties does not create a safety hazard or a fire separation hazard, and if it was one piece of real estate, it would be a moot point. Discussion was held about fire alarms on each side of the door that would talk to each other. Sara Van Meeteren pointed out that both parcel owners are consenting, and the issue is the fact that the spaces have separate owners. She said the Board needs to determine if the 2-hour fire door would provide an equivalent level of safety that a fire wall would provide. Cormicle clarified that if the Board granted the appeal, the door would need to remain closed and would be sealed up in the future if there was a new tenant. Moved by Cormicle, seconded by Heemstra, to grant the appeal with the appropriate 2-hour rated door and hardware set that would have to pass inspection by the City Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Board or Staff Comments None Adjournment Moved by Cormicle to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 p.m. _____________________________ Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary Page | 4