Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-09 - MinutesA meeting of
1986, at the
Arkansas.
MICROFILMED
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS
the Board of Construction Appeals was held on April 9,
City Administration Building, Room 326, Fayetteville,
Members Present:
Neal Albright, Tommi Perkins and J. Palmer Boggs.
Others Present: Albert Skiles,
Erwin.
Freeman Wood, Bert Rakes and Beverly
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Albright at 4:08 p.m.
The reason for this meeting is the applicant was not notified of the
meeting held on April 4, 1986, and he felt he should have a meeting
with them to present his case.
The item on the agenda was from Albert Skiles for a variance on bedroom
window sizes for a house which is already constructed at 2673 Colette.
Skiles stated the last thing on his mind is to compromise safety as
far as exits in a house. He wanted to show that he can meet the spirit
of the code if not the total square foot of the window opening. The
house exceeds the code in all other regards, for example 5/8" sheetrock,
separate garage, full brick, four exterior doors and has two windows
in the adjoining bathroom that do meet code. The owners requested
that type of window because of their health. They didn't want them
too close to the floor because they put their beds under them. They
have practiced with them to see if they could get in and out of these
windows and they could. His main point against the code is he could
site examples of casement windows that meet the code that would be
much more difficult to get in and out of than these would be. He
thinks it is good to have a code that has a minimum square inch standard
but that if you have a circumstance where you join a window together
with a nonmetal mull then it is different. The mull in the middle
is nonstructural and doesn't hold up anything. They disassemble with
one blow. The whole assembly would come apart without breaking the
glass. He talked to the Fire Department and they explained to him
how they would get into the house if the window was locked. If it
were a casement window that was locked they would have to shatter
the whole window to get in where as in this case you could break the
top window and unlock the window and break the mull and have a 3'
high by 6' wide opening to get in. He feels these would be easier
to get in and out of than some windows that meet the code. He feels
getting out of them is not the issue. The windows are within 3' of
the ground. The combination of all the above mentioned factors should
have a bearing on the variance. According to Mr. Skiles he talked
to a representative of Anderson windows and he stated they could be
jerked apart in case of an emergency.
• Perkins asked him what the height of the opening was.
•
Skiles stated he measured it and it was almost 19 inches.
Perkins commented that the height also doesn't meet the code.
Skiles agreed with her in that the height is supposed to be 24" high.
The overall opening should be 5 square feet. He thinks it is fine
as a standard but he feels that you can present a case with less square
footage than is required and, that is not any less difficult to get
out of. He thought that since they were this close and with the other
factors mentioned above that it is not an issue of getting out of
the building quickly. There is over 20 square feet of openable space
if the mull was taken out.
Perkins repeated that they wanted to put their bed under the window
and that is why they don't meet the height requirement.
Skiles said they also requested that type of window. He got them
as wide as he could and he thought since the mull was not structural
that it would have a bearing in the reading of the code.
Perkins asked him if when he brought the plans in if he were told
that the windows would not comply.
Skiles stated his contractor brought the plans down. The first time
he heard that they would not meet the code is when they were inspected
recently. At that point the Contractor said the Inspector said they
would not meet the code. He figured the windows were going to be
real close but he did not measure the windows. He wished it would
have been measured sooner. He feels that as far as safety is concerned
he is within the spirit of the code as far as getting someone out
in an emergency. If all the Board had to go on was that the windows
don't meet code then he would be all for denying the variance. They
can get out of their bathroom as easily as they can get out of the
bedroom and the bathroom has windows that meet the code.
Albright asked if they were wood sashes.
Skiles stated they were Anderson windows. The mull in the middle
is not structural. A fireman can hit it with his axe and break the
mull without breaking the window. He talked to the fire department
and they told him if they were metal windows they would be harder
to get in than a wood window. The issue the code addresses is how
the fireman will get in with an oxygen tank on. The code doesn't
address how high the window is off the ground. It can be on the first
floor and still be twelve feet off the ground. These windows are
less than 4' off the ground. The fireman told him they would break
the top window and undo the latch if it were locked. You can meet
the code and still make it more difficult to get in than it is to
get in or out of these windows.
Albright asked for Wood's comments. Wood stated the only comments
he would make is he told the person who brought the plans it that
it didn't look as if the windows would work.
•
Skiles stated that
factors should be
can not meet code
make it easier to
feels the criteria
window.
Albright asked for
Skiles stated each
information didn't get to him. He felt that other
considered other than just code requirements. You
and have a lot of other factors going for you that
get in and out of the house in an emergency. He
should be how easy it is to get in and out of the
verification of the dimensions on his request.
window is 3 1/2' high by 3'2" wide.
Albright asked him if he meant 36 inches wide without the mull.
Skiles corrected him in saying that figure is with the mull. In the
open position it is 18 3/4". The total square feet is 4.49. The
height is slightly 6" less than the code allows and 6" wider than
code.
Albright asked if the mull is knocked out how many square feet you
have.
Skiles stated you have 20 square feet. If both are knocked out than
you have 40 square feet. He thinks it is important to consider that
they could possibly get out easier than if the window were to meet
code.
Albright asked for the minutes of the last meeting to see comments
from Fire Chief Jackson.
In the last meeting Jackson stated in his summary that we have a code
with reasonable requirements and we should stand behind it and enforce
it. It seems like they were warned before the house was built.
Skiles stated if they had known that they weren't going to meet code
then they would not have put them in there. He told them he would
never have to come before them again.
Albright asked who brought the plans in.
Skiles stated the contractor brought the plans in. He thought it
was his responsibilty to make sure the house passed code and not the
responsibility of the Inspector. He would not have proceeded if he
had been told.
Perkins told him that they haven't granted variances in the past on
bedroom windows.
Skiles told her that he realized that and he wanted to point out these
things for them. He wondered if it would have an affect if windows
that do meet the code are in the adjoining bathroom.
Boggs asked what the difference was that would make them meet the
code.
•
•
•
•
Skiles told him they are 4' high.
Wood stated he didn't think a 4' high window would raise 24".
Skiles stated it is 4'1" overall. It is 26 inches wide.
Wood stated he didn't think it would give him 5 square feet. It takes
a 3o5o window to get 5 square feet.
Boggs asked if they are double hung in the back. Skiles stated yes.
Skiles stated he thinks it is good that they don't grant variances
for just anything.
Boggs stated he felt Mr. Skiles argument is very convincing but it
isn't enough. He made a motion. to deny the request.
Perkins seconded.
Skiles told them that what he planned to do if he was rejected was
to replace one window with a shutter that locks from the inside and
opens to the inside for egress.
Wood told him as long as it had 5 square feet it would work and it
did not have to have glass. He suggested that they make a sticker
to put on it that says Emergency Egress which would be helpful in
case of an emergency.
After no further discussion the vote was unanimous 3-0 for denial
of the request.