HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 12/04/2017MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS
AMES, IOWADECEMBER 4, 2017
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at4:00p.m.,December 4, 2017, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from
the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Brad Heemstra,David Carnes,Chuck Haselhoff,Andrew Mott, and Dan Nutini. Nathan Werstein was absent.
Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert, Ryan Cable, Stephen Pohl,and Vicki Feilmeyer.
Moved byHeemstra, seconded byHaselhoff, to approve the minutes of November 6, 2017
Vote on Motion: 6-0
Motion passed unanimously
Old Business
None
New Business
A. Appeal of the 2012 International Mechanical Code, Section 403.3, by Krista Harvey of Studio 7 Salon and Spa
Krista Harvey presented her appeal. Harvey is the owner of Studio 7 Salon and Spa. She classifies her salon as a Beauty Salon, not a Nail Salon. Beauty Salons are not required to have
source capture systems. Her salon does not have licensed nail technicians and the nail services they provide are more natural in nature such as manicures and pedicures. They do not offer
acrylic nails, use harsh chemicals, oruse products with heavy fumes. Nail services are a small percentage of the salon’s overall business.
Dan Nutini asked how many nail stations were at the salon. Harvey answered four.
David Carnes asked how the State classifies a licensed nail technician. Harvey replied that licensed nail technicians are trained to do acrylic nails and more aggressive nail services,
whereas licensed cosmetologists are not trained to do acrylic nails and only perform more natural nail services.
Chuck Haselhoff asked Harvey if there was potential to grow nail services at the salon in the future. Harvey answered no – hair is the primary service.
Carnes asked for clarification on the portable units and if they would comply with the code. Harvey replied that the salon would be required to have four individual portable units, with
one at each nail station. Sara Van Meeteren added that the portable system would comply with the code, and is the solution that Harvey’s contractor suggested.
Haselhoff pointed out the code states when nail services are performed, anexhaust system is required at each station at table level. Van Meeteren clarified, stating the code requires
a source capture system, which is triggered by the Nail Salon definition. The code does not provide a clear definition of Beauty Salon or Nail Salon. The Inspections staff has determined
a Nail Salon to be any place that performs nail services.
Andrew Mott asked if this was a new requirement in the code. Consensus was that the requirement has been in the code, but the parameters have been more defined in the last couple of
code cycles.
Nutini asked to review the timeline of the email correspondence. Van Meeteren summarized the events with the proposed exhaust options.
Discussion was held aboutexhaust options,capacity, and source capture systems.
Larry Cormicle recapped the situation. He then stated that the Board does not have the authority to define business classifications, and although Harvey does not consider her salon a
Nail Salon, nail services are provided. Therefore, the IMC has specific exhaust and ventilation requirements for the space as well as a requirement for a source capture system for each
nail station. The Board believes that Harvey was not provided with all possible, potentially less expensive, options from her contractor or mechanical design engineer to meet the exhaust
requirements.
Moved by Carnes, seconded by Haselhoff, to deny the appeal as presented and uphold staff’s definition of Nail Salon and require a source capture system to be installed at each nail station
Vote on Motion: 6-0
Motion passed unanimously
Board or Staff Comments
None
Adjournment
Moved by Cormicle to adjourn the meeting at 4:44p.m.
___________________________
Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary