HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-13 - Minutes:: FAYETTEVI LLE
•
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
1009 -1039 N. Molly Court
MINUTES
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
(CBBA)
APRIL 13, 1998
A meeting of the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held at 4:15 p.m. on April
13, 1998, in room 111 of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Mike Tramill, Stephen Jeffus, Butch Green,
O. E. "Eudell" Luttrell, Jim Key, and
Dennis Becker (abstaining)
OTHERS PRESENT:Glenn Sowder, Mickey Jackson, Steve Cattaneo,
Bert Rakes, Don Fitzgerald, Jan West
Bert Rakes declared the meeting open and called the roll of members, Matt Bodishbangh, and
Stan Johnson being absent. Dennis Becker was present but abstaining.
The next order of business was the resignation of the former chairman, Lisa Johnson, and the
nomination and election of a new chairman and vice chairman. Mike Tramill nominated Jim Key
for chairman, Butch Green seconded and moved by acclamation that Jim Key be elected. The vote
1
113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501-521-7700
FAX 501-575-8257
was unanimous. Mr. Key then assumed charge of the meeting and opened the floor for
nominations for the vice-chairman.
O E Luttrell nominated Matt Bodishbangh and Butch Green seconded the nomination. Since
there were no other nominations, Mr. Key asked for a vote. Mr. Bodishbangh was unanimously
elected as vice-chairman.
The next order of business was the designation of voting alternate members. The alternates are
eligible to vote. William Green, being present as an altemat, then has voting rights. It was
suggested by Mr. Rakes that, even though it was not on the agenda, that the new and old
members introduce themselves to each other
Mr. Key moved to approve the minutes of the July 15, 1997 meeting. Mr. Tramill seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
RFOTIFST FOR APPFAT ON THF RFQI[TRFMFNTS OF 1991 CRC'
FOR THE APARTMENTS AT 1009 - 1039 N. MOLLY COURT.
GLENN SOWDER_ BUILDER
DENNIS BECKER_ ARCHITECT
Mr. Key said that first Mr. Becker & Mr. Sowder present their case, then listen to the suggestions
that Mr. Rakes had to make. Mr. Becker being a member of the board had volunteered to not
attend the meeting Mr. Rakes had informed him that he was welcome to come and present the
case as the architect, but that he would abstain from discussion or voting. Mr. Rakes made the
point that we did not want to discourage any design professionals from being on the board. Mr.
Becker was agreeable to this suggestion , as was Mr. Key and the other board members present.
Mr. Becker had the Blue Maxx forms, which he passed to the members, and the blue prints of the
apartments in question. There would be foam forms filled with concrete with rebar, which
separate the tenants, these walls would run all the way from the foundation to the roof gable
profile. The concrete would be 3 hour separation. The units are basically 18 ft wide. They plan
to use steel joists with metal deck and poured concrete for the floors. The roof would be a type
of slate that is supported by wooden trusses. They approached this with the idea that the bar
joists and steel would be less combustible than five eighths sheet rock on wood floor systems.
Mr. Cattaneo, during plan review, stated that this did not meet the UL listing, all of the UL listing
require a membrane.
Mr. Becker asked the members to look at the plans at this time, to better understand the situation.
Mr. Becker said that he also had spoken to Mr. Edward Johanson with UL in Chicago, to ask him
if there had been any testing of the bar joists without the membrane, dealing with the length of
2
•
•
time that bar joists and steel pan systems could last. Mr. Johanson said there had been no test like
that and they did not to expect to make any tests of that sort in the future.
Mr. Becker said they looked at a number of possible solutions, one being that they would put in
the membrane and loose the ascetics or a sprinkler system, and in that way keep the open bar
joists. He also presented a portion of the Southern Building Code dealing with Australia testing
systems that encourage communities to test some things without waiting ten years. This allows
architects and builders to test things with a better sense of fire safety. Mr. Becker then turned the
floor over to Mr. Sowder.
Mr. Sowder said the floors were going to be concrete, with 10 ft from pan to the floor. The only
things burnable in the apartment would be cabinets and furniture. The bar joists hang about 10
in below the pan in the ceiling, if they hung drywall for ceilings it would lower the ceiling to only
8 ft.. Mr. Sowder wants the board to consider the different possibilities: 1. Putting up the
membrane, 2. Putting in larger bar joists, 3. Putting in sprinklers.
Mike Tramill asked if bar joists were painted and how were they joined to the deck. Mr. Becker
said they were painted and joined by welding, that actually these units are the most structurally
sound buildings in the area. Mr. Key summed up the answer by saying the joists do over lap the
wall, as well as the bearing plate, then a steel deck on top of the bar joists and 3 inch concrete
poured on top of that. Mr. Sowder and Mr. Tramill agreed with the summation.
Mr. Becker stated that two things needed to be clarified, the efficiency unit is one level, with floor
to ceiling, ceiling to floor and wall to wall concrete. This in effect makes a honeycomb, there
would not be a tenant to tenant situation. In a separate unit ( 1041- 1051 N Molly Ct.) there are
two level units above one level units, but there are two stairs for escape in case of a fire.
Mr. Key stated some of the concerns that he had had about Styrofoam blocks, six and half inch
concrete , in the walls and floors had been addressed and answered, but that the real question was
that there was no protection for the steel bar joists.
Mr. Green stated that he had spoken to an engineer, who was involved in the steel joist industry,
had told him that the only way that the joists should be exposed is to be sprinkled. Mr. Green
also felt that there was not enough data for a determination to be reached of how thick the bar
joists would have to be, before they would be safe enough without sprinkling. He also felt that
the unit by itself might be safe enough, but with peoples books, clothes, posters, and papers
added, the problem escalated.
Mr. Tramill asked if they had considered spray on coatings for the bar joists. Mr. Becker said that
there was a cost factor, but even though the coating may be guaranteed for 20 or 30 years, he had
seen it flaking and peeling off in less than 5 years. Mr. Sowder also felt since there would be the
potential for the tenants to chip off the coating.
/'
•
•
•
Mr. Key asked if there were any alternatives that any of the members could consider instead of the
exposed bar Joists or using the membranes. Mr. Green stated that he would not consider usmg
bar Joists being exposed without having a sprinkler system or using a membrane.
Mickey Jackson stated that he would prefer the sprinkler system, and as far as cost went, he had
been told that the system could be put in for less than a dollar a foot. His main concern is for the
public and any fire-fighters that would be in these buildings without the protection. Mickey stated
that when bar Joists failed during a fire that this brought only that roof down, with wood trusses
failing it brought the whole structure down to ground level immediately, it would be like pulling
the rug from under someone. Mr. Green said not to take this for gospel, he had seen bar Joists
fail, although rarely.
Mr. Becker thought that Mr. Sowder had taken a lot of precautions with the concrete floors and
the concrete walls from foundation to roof gable. He stated that he thought that if Mr. Sowder
would agree that the best solution would be the sprinkler system above the bar Joists. Also Mr.
Becker and Mr. Sowder made it plain that this particular building had a ground level exit from the
basement apartments and ground level exits from the first floor apartments and stairs to the first
level from the second level apartments. Mr. Key stated that the only building they were
concerned with was the 16 unit apartment unit, with Mr. Becker agreed. Mr. Becker stated that
they could be considered a three story building if they came out of the ground a little to much it
would be no longer be a basement but an apartment. Mr. Rakes stated that the two stairways
coming down and the. changing of the width of the walk ways, on the submitted plans, brought
them within the code for safety.
Mr. Sowder asked if he would be required to sprinkle all three floors or only the bottom floor.
Mickey Jackson answered if it were up to him it would be all three floors. Mr. Becker felt that
they were, according to code, they would only have to sprinkle one floor.
The board members felt that with 1 hour separation between floors and between units that they
were meetmg code.
Mr. Rakes stated that we, as inspectors, wanted to encourage innovation and creativity in the
building industry. He applauded Mr. Becker for using products that were not necessarily new but
was using them in a new way in dwelling unit situations. Mr. Rakes said one question he had
asked himself was, where would he rather live. He knew that Mr. Becker and Sowder were
building a first class structure. Mr. Rakes said the options were to approve it with open bar Joists,
sprinklers, or any other suggestions that they may have. He congratulated the board for bringing
the knowledge and expertise to the meeting that they had, Mr. Rakes felt that the members had
the authority to say it was all right with sprinklers with a trade off situation, especially if Mr.
Sowder was willing to do the sprinklers.
Mr. Key asked that since this is classified as a type five construction system with a wood truss
roof system, weather it was sprinkled or not, would we still have to require the one hour
4
•
•
floor/ceiling tenant separation for multi -tenant occupancy. Mr. Rakes answered not by code, it
could be a trade off by the board. Mr. Key stated that then sprinkling does not bring it into code.
Mr. Rakes agreed and further stated that the board was going to have a comfort level that the
sprinkling was going to take the place of the membrane.
Mickey Jackson asked how many apartments were on each floor. Mr. Sowder stated there would
be six in the basement facing west on the down hill side, six facing east on the ground floor and
four on the second floor. Mr. Key asked if this would be classified as a basement or classified as
a floor. Mr. Rakes asked if the ends were open. Mr. Becker stated the ends were slope graded.
Mr. Tramill said he was concerned for the tenants on the top floor, how were they going to get
out if there was a fire. Mr. Rakes said the their first choice would be stairs down. Mr. Sowder
stated that they also have the choice of going out a window to the balcony below then to the
ground. Mr. Key stated this pointed up the reason for the egress out the windows.
Mr. Sowder stated that, before the meeting went any further, he wanted to thank the members for
the seriousness and consideration they were giving him in this matter, it was encouraging to him
as a builder.
Mr. Rakes stated that because of the design that this was being considered a two story structure
with a basement as far as egress is concerned.
Mr. Jeffus wanted to know if they had two questions before them, one being the foam concrete,
the second being the fire protection. Mr. Key said that they were here to make a decision on the
floor -ceiling assembly between dwellings, not on the foam concrete. Mr. Rakes said if their
decision was to sprinkle, they had to decide where and what to sprinkle. These decisions should
be made while Mickey was there to give some input.
Mr. Jeffus asked then if the question was to leave as is, sprinkle, or have the membranes. Mr.
Key said if they leave it as is they would not have the protection of the bar foists.
Steve Cattaneo had made the suggestion that they wrap the bar joists in sheetrock, and Mr.
Lutrell wondered if there was not some merit to this suggestion. Mr. Becker said there is a
Canadian system that has a temporary UL number, that addresses the exposed pan system that has
a cost of about seven dollars a foot, but this has a very industrial look to it and this was not what
they had in mind.
Mr. Key if they were ready to propose a motion. Mr. Tramill said they could leave as is
according to code, or spray exposed beams. Mr. Key added the third option of sprinklers.
Mr. Green was concerned if going with the sprinkler system, if this would not set a precedent for
the future. Mr. Luttrell said he was intrigued by the design and the very reason they sit on the
board is to make some hard decisions. Mr. Rakes said that the City Attorney has told us legally
•
•
•
each decision is based on it's own merit. He also stated that he would feel comfortable with the
decision made by the board.
Mr. Sowder said there seemed to be three possible decisions to be made, one as drawn to put up
fire retardant sheet rock under the bar joists, the second being foam the bar joists, third is to
sprinkle. He respectively requested that they grant him his variance.
Butch Green made the motion that on each one of the floors that would other wise be required to
have the membrane, that to achieve the one hour rating, that a sprinkler system be allowed to be
substituted for the membrane. The motion was seconded by Mr. Luttrell. The motion was
carried by five affirmative votes, with Mr. Becker abstaining.
Mr. Sowder once again thanked the board not only for their vote but for their consideration. He
also stated he had two videos pertaining to the type of concrete system he was using, if any of the
board members would be interested in seeing them. Mr. Rakes they could be kept in the library
and if anyone was interested they could check them out.
Mr. Rakes said that some old business from the last meeting needed to be addressed, mainly that
Miss Johnson had a question of how to handle an unruly member. Mr. Rakes had contacted the
City Attorneys office and had been told that they should try to handle the situation at the time and
not try to set any hard and fast rules. The next order of business was to congratulate Matt
Bodishbangh on his new job with Nabholz Construction.
Mr. Key asked if there was any new business. Mr. Green asked when the city was going to adopt
the Southern Building Code of 1997. Mr. Rakes said that Ray Carahan, the State Fire
Marshall, is the one trying to get everything together to get the code adopted. The Arkansas
Chapter of The Standard Building Code is doing everything they can to help Mr. Carahan get the
code passed.
Mr. Key made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Jeffus seconded the motion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
6
•
l
„7, KR7
/79?
FA -
Fey
ri
Raj
FAYETTEVILLE
•
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TO: C. B. A. A. MEMBERS
FROM: JAN WEST, INSPECTIONS CLERK
THRU: BERT RAKES, INSPECTION DIVISION DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 21, 1998
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1998 MEETING
Please review the enclosed minutes from the April 13, 1998
• meeting, concerning 1009-1039 and 1041-1051 N Molly Court.
If you have any corrections, please call me at 575-8233, or fa»
575-8316.
Thank you,
Jan West
113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501-521-7700
FAX 501-575-8257
