Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 03/05/2018 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA MARCH 5, 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., March 5, 2018, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, David Carnes, Chuck Haselhoff, Andrew Mott, and Dan Nutini. Brad Heemstra and Nathan Werstein were absent. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert, Ryan Cable, Stephen Pohl, Travis VerSteegt, and Vicki Feilmeyer. Moved by Haselhoff, seconded by Carnes, to approve the minutes of December 4, 2017 Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed unanimously Old Business None New Business A. Appeal of the 2012 International Building Code, Section 1011.5.2 Riser Height and Tread Depth at 201 Gray Avenue by Clint Jensen with Story Construction Larry Cormicle explained the appeal procedure. Appellant, Clint Jensen, presented his appeal. The issue at hand is a riser between the old, existing 100 year old building and a new addition that is not code compliant. The riser height on the single stair separating two rooms is 7.5 inches. The International Building Code specifies a maximum riser height of 7 inches and a minimum height of 4 inches. Story Construction thought it would be an easier transition between the rooms to have one step with a tread height of 7.5 inches than to have two steps with heights of 3.75 inches each. They concluded that a ½ inch height difference in one step in a 100 year old building that has had multip le additions was a fairly good outcome. The area involved is not a direct means of egress, and there is an ADA ramp going around the area. Sara Van Meeteren stated that staff does not have the ability to approve the 7.5 inch riser height. Staff does not consider the step a fixed condition, as it was created from the new construction and could have been constructed differently. Adam Ostert stated that the code is very specific on the height requirement. Travis VerSteegt added that the code states when there is a change of elevation, if it is less than 12 inches, then there should be a ramp or a sloped surface, although there are exceptions. 2 Andrew Mott asked if the area is a high traffic area. Jensen replied that it is no higher than any other traffic area in the building and there are other paths for the residents to take. Chuck Haselhoff questioned if there is enough space in the area for a ramp. Ostert replied that a ramp would have to be 140 inches long. Jensen added that 140 inches would have made a ramp extend around the elevator entrance because the space is so constrained, which is why they elected to go with a step. Cormicle asked how the vertical elevation of the new addition was established. Jensen replied that it was established by trying to tie in the existing house, the existing ramp, and the existing kitchen/dining room. There were three points of connection that had to be taken into consideration. Dan Nutini questioned what some acceptable solutions would be if the appeal is denied. Jensen replied that he has not proposed any solutions. He is hoping the ½ inch variance will be acceptable. He continued that he does not have a current solution and would need to come up with one if the appeal is denied. Cormicle asked what the design architect said about the situation. Jensen said that they agreed that it was a difficult tie in and their recommendation was to take the matter to the Board for resolution. Cormicle asked if there is room for a horizontal ramp with a code compliant slope. Is there enough horizontal distance? Ostert replied that, at minimum, they would have to have 84 inches for a one and twelve ramp. If they wanted to go up the sloped surface, it would be 140 inches, which would go into the hallway. Discussion was held about the floor surface, which is terrazzo flooring. The step in question was 7 inches in height until the terrazzo was applied. Mott wondered if the situation was a known safety issue in the house. Jensen replied that he is not aware of it being a safety issue. Cormicle reviewed the three alternatives that the Board could take. Moved by Nutini, to request additional information from staff and the appellant for future consideration by the Board at a future meeting The motion was not seconded Motion failed Moved by Mott, seconded by Haselhoff, to approve the appeal and find that the fixed condition restricts the ability to comply with the maximum 7 inch riser height, allowing the 7.5 inch riser to remain in place Vote on Motion: 4-1 Motion passed 3 B. Appeal of the 2015 International Mechanical Code, Section 306.1 Access, and Section 306.2 Appliances in Rooms at 201 Gray Avenue by Clint Jensen with Story Construction Appellant, Clint Jensen, described the situation. Part of the contract for the addition to the building was to upgrade the existing mechanical system to have full house heating and cooling. The mechanical room is very small and caused challenges with space. They kept the ductwork as high as possible so as to not have to relocate the gas and water lines. The primary water heater is sitting on eight inch legs and has the gas and electronics below the unit. There is a secondary unit that is strictly a holding tank. The code states that ductwork cannot be removed to remove a piece of equipment, so their solution would be to disconnect all the water lines and slide the water heater down or disconnect the legs to remove the water heater when necessary. A future new water heater would be the same size or smaller than the existing unit and the controls could be near the top of the unit which would eliminate the need for the legs. David Carnes pointed out that a water heater of this size is 580 pounds empty. This specific model today has the same design as the older units with the legs on the bottom. However, another model could be used in the future. Chuck Haselhoff stated that he has never seen a water heater that one could cut the legs off of to move it, and that it would be very dangerous to do so. Cormicle asked if there was any option to rework the ductwork to avoid the water heater. Jensen replied that it is very slim. The ductwork is already limited as it was fitted around sprinklers and electrical. Cormicle asked if a smaller water heater unit could meet the demand requirements of the house. Ostert stated that no one has done the calculations on a smaller unit. Haselhoff said it looks like the ductwork could be modified so that it could be located above the water heater. Ryan Cable stated that there is not enough clearance in the space to alter the ductwork. Mott asked if the plans submitted for review were different from what was installed. Ostert answered in the affirmative. Moved by Cormicle, seconded by Mott, to deny the appeal as presented Vote on Motion: 5-0 Motion passed Board or Staff Comments None Adjournment Moved by Cormicle to adjourn the meeting at 4:41 p.m. ___________________________ Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary