HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-29 - Minutes•
s ••
•
mmiN
509 E MILLSAP ROADM!CROFILMED
MINUTES
CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
(CBAA)
JULY 29, 1999
• A meeting of the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals was held on July 29, 1999, at
•
1:15 p.m., in room 111 of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Jim Key, Tommi Perkins, Dennis Becker,
Butch Green, Matt Bodishbaugh, and
Eudell Luttrell
Hannah McNeill, David J Swain, Marc
Barey, Mickey Jackson, Minor Wallace,
Bert Rakes, and Jan West
Matt Bodishbaugh, Chair, declared the meeting open and asked for a role call. Bert Rakes,
Secretary, called the role. Mike Tramill was absent. Matt asked Jim Key if he was officially on
the board but abstaining because of his involvement in the project. Jim stated that he was still a
member but wanted to present his clients case and participate in the discussion but that he was
abstaining from the vote.
• Mr. Rakes stated that there was a quorum of the board, although if Stan Johnson arrived as he
hoped to he would be the alternate. Mr. Rakes also had hoped that the new board member,
•
•
•
•
.•
Thomas Campbell, would be able to attend so he could be recognized by the board. Mr.
Campbell has been in the area many years as an electrical contractor. Also Mr Green is now a
full fledged member, rather than an alternate, and is welcomed.
Mr. Bodishbaugh stated that to vary technical provisions requires a minimum of three votes and
in order to vary a building officials decision it takes a minimum of four votes. Since there was a
quorum present, alternate and abstaining members would be allowed to enter into the discussion
but would not be allowed to vote. The next item on the agenda was to approve the minutes from
the meeting of April 19, 1999, regarding Burt Hannas appeal. Mr. Luttrell made the motion to
accept the minutes and Mr. Green seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to accept the
minutes.
Mr. Bodishbaugh then asked Mr.Key, of Wischmeyer Architects, to state the case as concisely as
possible, for the appellate. There would then be discussion from the board members and any
questions or comments from the audience. The board would then make their decision and vote.
Mr. Key stated they had made their appeal after discussing the project with Bert Rakes, Minor
Wallace and Steve Cattaneo, building inspectors for the City of Fayetteville. This project was a
complex of medical offices of approximately 24,000 square feet. The clients desire is to provide
space, at the tenants option, in the truss space that could be used for storage. The code does not
address in specific language or any detail how you address these types of spaces. Mr. Key
further stated that this was a shell structure and the tenants would finish each space to their
specifications. The request of the appellant, was that they would be allowed to have access to
those areas with pull down attic access ladders, where the tenants wish to access the area for
storage. Mr. Key said that even if the tenant did not use the area for storage there would still
have to be some access to the attic. Mr. Key said they were proposing a type six construction
protected, rather than unprotected, as stated in the submittal. Mr. Rakes apologized for the error
in the submittal. From the square footage standpoint Mr. Key had to consider a one hour
protection to allow the air increase to exceed the 24, 400 square feet he was proposing, other
wise they would have had to go to a type five construction. Mr. Bodishbaugh asked if this meant
that all structural members had one hour protection, Mr. Key stated this was correct. Mr. Key
stated that the intent was to frame the exterior walls with 2 x6 wood framing materials, to
provide an exit way with one hour protection, and draft stops would be provided every 3,000 foot
area in the attic space. They preferred to have a pull down attic stair case, rather than a one hour
permanent stair case, because if they provided the permanent stair case the tenant would be
tempted to use the attic as working space rather than for storage. The space would not be
insulated and would not be heated or cooled and no extra lighting provided. Mr. Key pointed out
that they were looking at less than 6,000 square feet of attic/storage space..
Mr. Bodishbaugh asked if there would be windows in the gable ends of the attic space, and Mr.
Key stated that there were some small accent windows, which were not usable, and would not be
accessible to the tenants for storage/attic space. Mr. Bodishbaugh asked for some comments
from Mickey Jackson for the fire departments views on this building request. Mr. Jackson
wanted to make clear that the lower floor would be multiple occupancy, with one hour protection
between each occupant and that there would be 5,000 square feet of attic space, which would
•
cover two of the spaces below. Hannah McNeill stated there are approximately 2500 sq. Ft.
on each side. Each tenant would determine their attic space. Mr. Jackson asked if there would be
a one hour ceiling as well as the floor. Mr. Key said that they had discussed that there would be
a one hour tenant separation in the walls of the attic space, if the tenant wanted the attic space.
Therefore the tenant would provide the separation in the attic, when they were issued their permit
to finish out their space. Mr. Bodishbaugh asked for a clarification if the attic space would be a
one hour enclosure for each tenant attic space. Mr. David Swain and Ms. McNeill both stated
that there was no plan by the builder of the shell, to enclose each of tenant spaces, this would be
the tenants place. Mr. Jackson wondered if this complex would be sprinkled and if so would the
attic space also be sprinkled. Mr. Swain said that they could sprinkle the attic space but Mr. Key
interjected, this would be cost prohibitive and the complex itself was already type six protected
but unsprinkled. Mr. Green asked Mr. Jackson how his firefighters would be able to get up a
folding stair case, in the event of a fire. Mr. Jackson said they would have to go through the roof,
the same as fighting a fire in 'a house with pull down attic access. He also mentioned that the
code may not cover this area, but that when they had a structure of more than 24000 square feet
they really would like to have the area all sprinkled. Mr. Swain wanted to let the board know
that these were purely potential attic spaces, not actual space, with the option available. He
further stated that if the board did decide that they would have to use permanent stairs, in his
mind only encourages the tenant to use this as additional office space. Their plans made this an
optional space for storage only.
• Mr. Bodishbaugh asked if Bert wanted to make his statement at this time. Mr. Rakes said that
when Ms. McNeill came to the Inspection Division with their plans they anticipated no problem,
but when the plan reviewer saw what they were planning, he thought there was a problem. All
that the inspectors or the city wanted was to make everything correct and with in code as easily
as possible. Mr. Rakes stated that the code does not recognize pull down stairs, in fact the code
doesn't recognize it in homes, but all the homes use them and is probably a lot safer than a ladder
propped up for access. One problem that had not been addressed, Mr. Rakes commented, was
that if you had a pull down stairs what happened to the one hour ceiling. The ceiling would be
compromised as not having a continuous one hour membrane. Mr. Rakes concluded that this
was going to have to be a board decision, and if the board said that these pull down stairs were
allowable in this situation, then it was as legal as anything that could be done. Mr. Rakes said
that this situation was one that he really needed help with and welcomed the help of the board in
this situation.
•
Mr. Bodishbaugh asked if there were any questions or concerns that board members might like to
address at this time. Mr. Green stated that the had a few concems about the board passing this
and then in a few years having more buildings with this type of situation and there being a
problem. His concern was with human safety in a fire situation. Mr. Becker asked Mr. Key
about the attic area having a gyp creek floor not showing on the drawing, his concern was the
same as Mr. Rakes with the one hour ceiling being penetrated. Mr. Becker would like to see the
attic area very well protected, smoke detectors tied into the system, one hour walls on all sides, a
sprinkler system etc.. Mr. Swain stated that his understanding of the situation is that to achieve
the one hour assembly they had to have I or 2 5/8 gyp board to the bottom of the rough board
itself with insulation on top of that.. Mr. Rakes said that code made provisions for one layer of
•
•
•
•
1
5/8 gyp board with attic insulation. Mr. Swain questioned Mr. Rakes as to what conditions they
would have to have if all of the tenants wanted to have a storage/attic space? Mr Rakes stated
that they would have to have a protected stairway, with one hour protected doors on the stairway,
then they would be getting into the one hour separation from floor to roof type of situation. Mr.
Becker could see no problem with using the space as long as it had the same protected rating in
the rest of the space. Mr. Key and Ms. McNeill said that they felt if they finished out the space
it would encourage the use of the space. They wanted this to be an option for the tenant and the
reason they felt the pull down stairs would be better, if they did not want a storage space the pull
down stairs would not be there. Mr. Rakes asked if they were considering of extending the one
hour protection clear to the roof. Mr. Swain stated that this was one of their options.
Mr. Bodishbaugh asked where the heating units, water heaters etc. would be located. Ms.
McNeill stated that they would all be in the units below the attic space. Mr. Bodishbaugh
wondered what kind of lighting they would provide in the attic area. Mr. Swain commented that
if the tenant wanted to use the space they would provide a light fixture. Mr. Bodishbaugh stated
that his concern here was that they would have a space that had an 8 ft high space with a box
truss, with sheet rock for fire protection and lighting, you encourage people to use this for not
only possible office space, but for all of their records to be stored in this area When it came tax
time you may have a crew of people in the area searching through boxes, they would be tempted
to stay there rather than having to negotiate the pull down stairs several times with boxes. This
type of situation just lends itself to the area being eventually used as another office space.
Mr.Key commented that this is the very reason they did not want to have the open protected stair
well. Mr. Rakes stated that the code would have no problem with having an additional office
space in the attic with the protected stair well.
Mr. Green stated his only problem is that with the potential of 1000 feet of storage space you
come back to the code, if they exceed the 75 feet travel distance from a mezzanine type of
situation, and you have people up in the space when a fire breaks out there would be a loss of
life. Mr. Green had some genuine life concern issues.
Mr Becker thought that a solution to the problem might be that the contractor go ahead and finish
out the space.. Because even if you don't put the pull down stairs in , the tenant could come
along and put the pull down in and still put the records up there and it would be a more
dangerous situation. His suggestion was finish the space and include the cost in the lease. Ms.
McNeill said that this one solution they had considered, but the cost was not what they had
anticipated. Mr. Becker said that as long as they did not breach the one hour membrane, there
were many solutions to making the storage area usable and safe, and still have pull down stairs.
Mr. Bodishbaugh asked that the board members to air their concerns. His main concern was a
life safety issue, that when the board was asked to use some discretion with the code, they had to
ask them selves if they were compromising a life saving issue. Mr. Bodishbaugh said he would
like to help the appellant with a solution, but the board only had to be concerned with the issue at
hand, perhaps after the meeting they could discuss some solutions.
Mr. Green stated that the code was quite clear on this issue, and the reason for this is for life
•
•
•
•
safety. That is Mr. Greens main concern as well. Mr. Lutrell said that he admired the fact that
the contractor wanted to be able to use the space, but that his concerns were the same as Mr.
Bodishbaugh and Mr Green. Mr. Becker stated that the code should not be used to stifle
creativity, and some of the problems could be addressed in the lease with the tenants. Ms.
Tommi Perkins stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Becker's statement.
Mr. Bodishbaugh asked Mr. Rakes if he had any other pointers to give to the board to help them
with their decision. Mr. Rakes stated that he really had nothing to add but he knew that the board
had a tough decision and as in the past they would make the one that was best for the
community. All of the members were very well qualified and one of the best boards that Mr.
Rakes had the privilege to work with in a long time. Mr. Rakes said that he would rely on the
board to make the right decision.
Mr. Bodishbaugh made a call to put the question to a vote. Mr. Lutrell made the motion to put
the question to a vote and Mr. Green seconded the motion. Mr. Bodishbaugh stated there was a
motion to vote on the issue. Mr. Bodishbaugh would state that the issue is that anyone in favor
of approving the appeal for the use of pull down stairs as an access/egress from an attic/storage
area in a multi -tenant finish business occupancy, a positive vote will allow the use of pull down
stairs. He asked if everyone understood what the issue was and if they understood what a yes
vote would mean. All members said they understood. Mr. Bodishbaugh asked for the aye vote,
Mr. Becker and Ms. Perkins voted aye. Mr. Bodishbaugh, Mr. Green, Mr. Lutrell voted nay.
The appeal was denied. Mr. Bodishbaugh turned to the appellants to encourage them to work
with the board members to come up with a solution that they could all be happy with, all of the
board members concurred with this statement.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
•
•
• FAYETTEVILLE
113 W MOUNTAIN ST 72701
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
TO: C. B. A. A. MEMBERS
FROM: JAN WEST, INSPECTIONS CLERK
THRU: BERT RAKES, INSPECTION DIVISION DIRECTOR
DATE: AUGUST 31, 1999
• SUBJECT: MINUTES OF JULY 29, 1999 MEETING
•
Please review the enclosed minutes from the July 29, 1999 meeting, concerning 509 E
Millsap Road.
If you have any corrections, please call me at 575-8233, or fax 575-8316.
Thank you,
an West
•
•
•
II
•
,W, !tU (Ai,sw,
t)AviO 7' swXtm
5Chmeyerc phi 4-cf5
M4 ( coN.s-r,2vcr-104
•
444 ct4
mrd GPf5 J Gt�c/E(/Gf4rl%X6
ELdia_ t/ 4 uultire./ / O z a,& -lis E/e e -7`4--,'Q
1 Setr k4 -Ie -SS Cry O[=' Yet L hill l L
