HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-17 - Minutesi
MICROFILMED,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS
November 17, 1983
A meeting of the Board of Construction Appeals was held at the
Chamber of Commerce at 123 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
on November 17, 1983.
Members present:
Others present:
Dale Cress, Tommi Ackley, J. Palmer Boggs,
Paul Parker and Neal Albright.
Bob Weinland, Ede Hogue --Airport Manager,
Dale Frederick --Assistant Airport Manager,
Larry Poage--Fire Inspector, Freeman Wood --
Inspection Superintendent, Don Grimes --City
Manager; and David McWethy--Asst. City Manager.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Neal Albright at
4:00 p.m.
The variance to be reviewed was submitted by Ede Hogue to
allow T -hangars to be built at Drake Field without fire walls.
The building is a steel structure and the Airport Manager
feels that requiring fire walls in this facility result in
overbuilding the aircraft hangars.
Albright asked for comments from someone representing the
airport.
Ede Hogue stated they wanted to build T -hangers without fire
walls. Dale Frederick pointed out fire code doesn't require
fire walls in between each individual unit but 1 hour fire
walls every 3000 feet. Wood pointed out that fire code does
not require any fire walls in this application.
Bob Weinland stated he had built many T -hangars and only one
job in Boston required fire walls. There are not any hangars
around here with fire walls. He stated it is not common for
fire walls to be in hangars.
Wood read from the building code sec 403.2 which stated spaces
for separate tenants such spaces shall be separated by not less
than 1 hour fire wall, non fire rated partitions may be used
to separate tenants provided no area between partitions rated
at 1 hour or more exceeds. 3000 square feet. He also read from
sec 412.4 that each hangar of area exceeding 10,000 square
feet shall be equipped with approved automatic sprinklers in
accordance with sec 901. Wood also said that if a 4 hour fire
wall was built every 10,000 square feet a sprinkler would
not by required.
Page 2
Poage stated if hangars have offices he thinks; it:should-have
a 1 hour fire separationbetween tenants.
Frederick stated these hangars are only for storage. They
would not allow work being done in the hangar.
Hogue stated these fire walls weren't necessary and in bidding,
they didn't anticipate them in the cost.
Wei.nland explained what a'T'hangar.looked like. He stated it
was a long narrow building with 5 doors on each side with
automatic door openers. .The building is used as a storage
for aircraft. By custom,' there aren't people in the building
because they don't load passengers or fuel until they get out
of the hangar.
McWethy stated that as far as cost went, it has not been
decided how this will be paid for, but that it should not
influence the decision of the board.
Ackley asked about insuring a T -hangar that had no fire
protection.
Hogue stated at this time they are not insured and are not
expecting any trouble with insurance. She also stated that a
sprinkler system would be, the last resort.
Grimes said he believed that sprinklers would make a fire
situation in hangars more' difficult to control and that he
did not agree with sprinkler requirements in hangars.
Poage stated he would rather have fire walls in this building
than a sprinkler system. He feels fire walls need to separate
each tenant.
Hogue stated all she wanted to do was to build a T -hangar
that isn't different from everyone else.
Wood stated that possibly in this situation the code
requirements were toorestrictive, but he believed the hangar
needed some kind of fire; wall`_ protection and threw out the
possibility of building either or 1 hour walls every 3000
feetror a 4 hour wall to divide building into two equal
halves.
Weinland stated that they build 200 or 300 units a year and
have only had two catch on fire that he knows of.
Boggs stated that since the use of fire walls is mentioned
in the Southern Standard Building Colde that he felt it would
be applicable for this building.
• Boggs moved that variance be denied.
Ackley seconded the motion.
Wood asked if they would consider granting a variance to
allow the building to have 1 hour walls every 3000 square
r
Page 3
•
•
•
and leave out the 4 hour fire wall or build the 4 hour wall
and leave out the 1 hour walls.
After general discussion Mr. Boggs moved to retract his first
motion and made a motion that the variance be denied as written
and that it be built with the one hour fire walls between each
tenant and wave the sprinkler and or 4 hour fire wall requirement.
Ackley seconded the motion.
Hogue pointed out that the building code only.required 1 hour
separation every 3000 square feet and they didn't want to do
any• more than Building Code requires.. Boggs pointed out
that the 1 hour separation between each tenant space wall a
trade off in lieu of building the hangar to meet code
requirements.
The vote was unanimous with Ackley, Boggs, Cress, Parker
and Albright voting.
The requestfor the second variance was submitted by Sandy
Wallace for Sunshield Awning. He is asking to lower the
height of the awning from18 feet to 7'3'. If the awning is
standard height then it will cover up a window.
The board asked Freeman Wood if he thought there would be a
problem with lowering the height. Wood said no.
Parker moved to grant the variance.
Cress seconded the motion.
Albright called for any discussion; then called for the vote.
The vote was unanimous, in favor of granting the variance.
The request for the third variance was also submitted by Sandy
Wallace for Sunshield Awning. He is asking to lower height of
canopy from 9 feet to 7 feet.
Wallace stated that if the canopy was standard height that it
would be above the landing for a fire excape. Seven feet would
be the bottom of the frame, and would be supported by iron
metal poles.
The board asked Wood if he thought there would be a problem with
lowering the height. Wood said no.
Cress moved to grant the variance.
Ackley seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous in favor of granting the variance.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
NAME City of Fayetteville - Airport Dept. DATE November 17, 1983
ADDRESS P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72701
HOME TELEPHONE NA BUSINESS TELEPHONE 521-4750
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED:
Fayetteville Municipal Airport - Drake Field
4500 54 Sc-rtoc,L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED:
Fayetteville Municipal Airport - Drake Field
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
TO construct a 10 -unit T -hangar facility without fire walls.
1.5
REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE:
Fire walls in T -Hangars are not standard. Requiring fire walls in
this facility results in overbuilding the aircraft hangar. The building
'itself is a stool structure.
•
INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM:
Airport Department - City of Fayetteville
REASONS DECISION OF
REVERSED:
Interpretation of
address T -hangars
BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR
section pertaining to Tenant Separation. Section does not
specifically and allcias for interpretation.
Signature
NOTE: A fee o $
Section 111.5 of
meet within ten
ceived. Section
of Appeal sh. b
cision is endere
10.00 shall a -..pan each Notice of Appeal.
he Build'
-• Code provides that the Board shall
11 after Notice of Appeal has been re -
46f the Building Code provides that Notice
e filed hin ninety (90) days after the de -
d by the building official.
•
•
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
P. 0. DRAWER F
Mr. Bob Weinland
Weinland, Inc.
POB 1365
- Canton, OH 44708
Dear Mr. Weinland:
November 8, 1983
72702 (501) 521-7700
The purpose of this letter is to put in written form what I believe are the
essential points we discussed in our telephone conversation of this afternoon.
As you know, your firm was the successful bidder for the installation of
ten "T -hangars" on the east side of Fayetteville's municipal airport One of
the instructions in the bid documents was that the work was to meet applicable
city codes (which includes, by reference, the Southern Standard Building Code)
and that plans and specifications were to be submitted to the city Inspection
Department for review and approval --and the issuance of a building permit --
prior to the initiation of construction.
It is my understanding, however, that your local representative filed a set
of plans with the Inspection Department and began work on the site without
getting either the plans approved or a building permit. Your company's work
forces were therefore already on the site when the Inspection Superintendent
determined --after consultation with SSBC and State Fire Marshall officials --that
certain fire protection requirements were not proposed to be included in the
construction. Specifically, it was the opinion of the Inspection Superintendent
that the SSBC required either:
- ---that the ten "T -hangars" be provided with fire sprinklers; or
- ---that the ten units be divided into two sections by a four-
hour -fire -rated masonry wall and that one -hour -fire -rated
sheetrock be installed between every two units.
Both you and your local representative indicated that (1) you were not aware
of these requirements; (2) you disputed the decision of the Inspection Super-
intendent that they were, in fact, Building Code requirements; (3) it was your
opinion that they were unnecessary based on common practices elsewhere in the
country; and (4) your bid did not include them.
As a result of our telephone conversation, and in an effort to minimize
delays in the project, you and 1 agreed that the following sequence of steps would
take place:
1. The Inspection Department would allow your local repre-
sentative to continue the present task of constructing the
concrete piers;
Mr. Bob Weinland
November 8, 1983
page 2
2. Your firm would file an appeal with the Fayetteville
Board of Housing & Construction Appeals asking that
this group either overturn the decision of the Inspection
Superintendent that the fire protection elements are
required by the Code; or, alternatively, that a variance
from these general requirements be granted based on the
merits of this specific situation;
3. Assuming that neither of your requests is granted, provision
for the installation of these elements would be made
before erection of the hangars; and
4. You and City Manager Don Grimes would work out the
details of how --and by whom --these fire protection
elements would be paid for.
Please advise immediately if I am in error on any of these points or if I
have mis-stated your position in any material way.
For your convenience I am enclosing an appeal form for you to fill out
and return. To minimize delays we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the
Board of Housing & Construction Appeals for Thursday the 17th at 4:00 p.m..
I strongly urge that you or your representative plan to attend.
Sincerely,
David McWethy
Assistant City Manager
cc. Don Grimes
Ede Hogue
Freeman Wood
