Laserfiche WebLink
• BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 <br />of holding an occupant load that would require a second exit. Areas over 500 square feet and <br />any third floor require a second exit. Unless "real" exits that provide isolation and separation <br />from each other can be constructed, not much is gained. <br />Kohnen reminded members that the natural response of anyone is to run for the stairway to <br />escape. <br />Paulfranz felt that since this is a single family dwelling, the owners have some level of control <br />over who is in the home and what they are doing. He felt an alarm system that would provide <br />equivalency based on automatic closing doors and detection equipment was a possible solution. <br />It was confirmed that the alarm system to be installed was the same type as that installed in <br />schools. <br />Paulfranz inquired about the construction of the door to the game room. It is proposed to be <br />a panel door with a 90 minute fire rating. He felt that door on a good magnetic closing would <br />be appropriate. All doors under discussion could be installed in a similar fashion. <br />The Jundts agreed they could conceptually follow these recommendations. <br />Anderson thought the Board's responsibility is to either uphold the decision of the Building <br />• Official which requires a second exit (or some modification under Section 106) or agree that he <br />is in error. He did not think the Board should be involved in designing an equivalency but that <br />should be left to the architect to design and submit to the Building Official for review. Other <br />Board members agreed. <br />• <br />Hanson asked if there were alternative egress devices that should be further explored. <br />Bellows thought discussion had lead to the decision that unless a "bona fide" fire escape could <br />be provided that some type of equivalency may be acceptable. This equivalency may be in some <br />area of refuge. <br />Anderson questioned the ability of the Fire Department to access an area of refuge if it were <br />created. He noted the size of the windows and distance to the third floor. <br />Kohnen agreed with Anderson stating their decision was to agree with the Building Official or <br />agree with the property owners. <br />Bellows felt there had been conceptual thoughts about alternatives but not an attempt to design <br />an appropriate equivalency. Exploration of possible alternatives helps the Board determine the <br />reasonableness of their decision. <br />4 <br />