Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-04 - Minutes• • MICR • 3380 N FUTRALL DRIVE NORTH PARK PLACE • • FILMED MINUTES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS (CBAA) JANUARY 4, 2000 A meeting of the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals was held on January 4, 2000, at 3:00 p.m., in room 111 of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Key, Butch Green, Stan Johnson, U E Lutrell, Dennis Becker, Tommi Perkins, Thomas Campbell; OTHERS PRESENT: Danny L Smith, Mickey Jackson, Don Moberly, Charlie Anson, Bert Rakes, Jan West The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chair, Jim Key, at 3:00 p.m.. Bert Rakes called the roll, with Mike Tramill and Matt Bodishbaugh being absent. There was a quorum present, with Dennis Becker abstaining from voting. Mr. Becker had worked for the owner on this project. The next order of business was to accept the minutes from the last meeting of November 15, 1999 for the Three Sisters Project. Tommi Perkins made the motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Dennis Becker. The vote was unanimous to accept the minutes as submitted. Mr. Don Moberly was introduced to present the case for the appellant. Mr. Moberly brought some site drawings, which he referred to periodically during the discussion. Mr. Moberly pointed out the design of the building and the surrounding area buildings and the distance between their building and the others. The building code allows a Type V unprotected type construction which, they are proposing, allowed them to go to 28,000 sq. ft with the allowable separations which they have in their plans. With the floor plan the code allows a maximum travel distance of 200 feet to an exit, they have a maximum of 80 feet to an exit. Mr. Moberly further stated that the code calls for a minimum of two exits and their plan calls for five exits. On the outside of the building there is parking and sidewalks all around the building, permitting plenty of fire truck access. The problem seems to be the function of the building, with three different operations being brought together in one facility: 1. A well clinic, 2. A sick baby clinic, and 3. All of the supports staff in between the two clinics. The files, storage, offices and cubicles for the doctors, nurses and clerical staff. It is necessary for the areas to be somewhat open to each other for an • • • efficient running of the offices and for the good flow of the patients, stated Mr. Moberly. He also stated that he and Mr. Rakes had talked about this situation and neither of them could come up with a way for them to have fire rated corridors in the building, which the code calls for, without ruining the flow of the plan. Therefore, the reason for the variance request. Mr. Moberly ended by asking for questions from the floor. Mr. Butch Green asked if sprinkling would alleviate this problem and if it would, what is the problem with sprinkling the area in question. Mr. Moberly answered that the project had a limited budget and sprinkling just was not in the budget. He further stated that he did not think that they had created a hazardous situation with this plan. Mr. Green commended Mr. Moberly with the number of exits that were shown on the plans that he had made it possible to get people out of the building quickly in the case of fire. He further stated that he had some questions on the sacrificing of the sprinkling and meeting the intent of the code. Mr. Moberly answered that he still needed the question of how to make the corridors fire rated answered and would take any suggestions that the board had to make. Mr. Key said that he was ready to hear any questions that the board members might have for the architect, even before the board hears the opposing views of the code enforcement official. He would also hear any questions or opposition from the audience. Mr. Key stated that Bert had good documentation for the partition, space and egress, etc. If there is more than 30 occupancy in any given space techinally the exit/access become one hour rated to protect those occupants. Obviously in this case, even if you look at the three "pods" with 3,000 sq. ft. each, there is no way to necessarily to isolate below that square footage. Mr. Key went on to say that having looked at the plans, he thought it impossible to install some fire walls or fire rated doors in any event it would not achieve the desired result of the code. The board could not take into consideration the possible increase in cost of installing a sprinkler system, or any other solution, that was a problem between the owner and the architect. The board could only be concerned with the intent of the code. At this point Mr. Key asked if there were any questions from the board as to the issues at hand as to why and what the extent these ratings would have to be. Mr. Becker asked as a point of clarification if they should not be looking at the waiting areas as exit/access areas as well as the halls? Mr. Moberly agreed that they should consider this, that this further compounds the one hour separation because of the openings. Mr. O. E. Luttrell asked if this was proposed to be a type VI construction. Mr. Moberly answered that is was a type V construction. Mr. Green asked if there was going to be a records storage area on the second floor meznine. Mr. Moberly stated that the doctors wanted some available record storage areas. The area would not be heated or cooled and there would be limited time in this area. Since there were no more questions from the board or the audience Mr. Key asked Mr. Rakes to state his position on this issue. Mr. Rakes stated that historically the positions of the code enforcement official have not made any concessions on the one hour corridors. The code does not make any concessions on this point. Mr. Rakes said that he would prefer to look at a sprinkled building as everyone would. One suggestion that Mr. Rakes had was that they make the building a type VI with sprinkling instead of a type V with the fire rated doors and halls. Essentially roof support is the difference between a V and a VI type building. There will be tenant separation in the walls depending what will go into each section the separation would be at least one hour. Really the exits that are there would have to required regardless of types of construction. Mr. Rakes stated that he wished there was some way to cut the building up. Fire Chief Mickey Jackson was asked for his concerns. He stated that he thought it would be money well spent to avoid all rated partitions and go ahead and sprinkle the building. It is a big enough building to do this and if they go ahead and put sprinklers in they will there as long as the building is and the • • • • spent to avoid all rated partitions and go ahead and sprinkle the building. It is a big enough building to do this and if they go ahead and put sprinklers in they will there as long as the building is and the building will be protected. Mr. Jackson further stated that it was easy to spend someone elses money but there would be insurance incentives to off set the cost of the sprinkling system and again it would be there for as long as the building was there. Ms. Perkins expressed a concern about the fire doors and having small children trying to open and close them. Mr. Rakes stated that the doors could be held open, but if there was a fire alarm sounded, and the building will have a fire alarm system, the doors would automatically close to retard the spread of fire. These are similar to the doors that you see in hospitals. Mr. Key stated that there are a lot of positive items with the building. The open space around the building, the fire doors, the fire rated doors, the layout is very good. Unfortunately the code does not provide for this layout type without a sprinkler system. Mr. Green stated that there is a way to bring the whole building into compliance and that is by sprinkling. Mr. Green questioned the storage area and if it had to be sprinkled under a type five construction. Mr. Jackson stated the sprinkler companies had a code that they have to follow and he believed that the area for storage would have to sprinkle as well as the attic. Mr. Key stated that as he saw it they had a couple of options, one: to divide up the area to get the square footage down to get the occupant load down to thirty and your egress is then adequate for those areas. Two: sprinkle the whole building. And three: grant a variance based on our feelings that it is safe by having adequate exits and access all around. He personally did not see any way that he could vote for the third option. Mr. Key said that at this point the board would need to consider a motion. Mr. Green made the motion that the appellant would have to re -figure to comply with the code. Mr. Key put the motion to the vote. The vote was unanimous to have the appellant comply with the code. Mr. Rakes asked if the timing of the meetings was all right or if there was a better time to hold the meetings. Mr. Key stated that they would have to take this up on a case to case basis, although the middle of the week does seem preferable to everyone. The next order of business was the election of officers. This is done at the first meeting of the year. Mr. 0. E. Lutrell nominated Mr. Matt Bodishbaugh as chairman and Tommi Perkins seconded the nomination. Mr. Green nominated Mr. Jim Key as vice-chairman and seconded by Ms. Perkins. The nominations were closed and it was unanimous to reelect both men to their respective positions. Matt Bodishbaugh is chairman, Mike Key vice-chairman. Ms. Perkins asked how a position was filled. Mr. Rakes explained that the positions were advertised by the City Clerks' office, applications were submitted to the City Council and were voted on by the Council members. If no one was selected, the position was advertised again, and the process was repeated. Mr. Rakes also stated that the present board member would be invited to apply for the position again. Mr. Rakes told the board members just how much he appreciated their hard work for the board and how much easier it made the Job of the building official. Mr. Becker stated that all of the members were appreciative of the work of the building official and the learning experience that each of the board members received from this type of appeal, • • cis ¢eeeto, ,j cst446,,7s ails Jia-tiu-f-rzy aUo3C� 190 __1 etre ier-r-7e/ ';7)„,4 -s,„ce inage,„, mt,A0c14 aka fir ti ,sisal<eco kt.1-- 24_ , 5 . Geif.�