Laserfiche WebLink
• BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 <br />Paulfranz thought the Board agreed that the interpretation of the code is correct and a second <br />exit is required. However, there are additional circumstances to be considered in this instance. <br />He felt members should look beyond agreeing or disagreeing with the Building Official's <br />decision. <br />Mrs. Jundt stated they recognize that they should have a second egress on the third floor but <br />because of historical significance, they are asking for forgiveness of that code. <br />Mr. Jundt felt the attorney had shown legal precedence for allowing this exception noting there <br />are few buildings such as Southways. <br />A motion was made by Paulfranz, seconded by Hanson, to ask the owner to design an <br />equivalency around an alarm system and door separations for the third floor. <br />The Jundts assured members this would be acceptable. <br />Anderson stated he would vote against the motion because he felt design should not be tied into <br />a motion. They could either agree or disagree with the Building Official and give some <br />guidance. Hanson and Kohnen agreed. Members decided the motion was premature and further <br />discussion needed to take place. Paulfranz withdrew the motion. <br />iChair Bellows asked if the motion to be called at this point is whether the Board believes there <br />is justification for an exception in this case. Anderson agreed. <br />• <br />Oman referred to his original letter to the Board members for clarification of their role. Hanson <br />thought the Board's recommendation could be that the Building Official consider an equivalency <br />to the UBC requirements of a second egress. The Board does not have the right to "waive" the <br />requirement for the second exit but can rule that an equivalency to that be determined which <br />would be the Building Official's responsibility. <br />Mr. Jundt did not feel this would resolve anything. <br />Chair Bellows reiterated that the Board should stay away from design issues. <br />Oman stated the Board could decide if they agree with his decision or not, or they could decide <br />if he should accept one of the previous proposals. If the Jundts have a new proposal, it should <br />come before the Building Official for his approval. They could then appeal again if they did not <br />agree with the Building Official's decision. <br />Mr. Jundt stated they did not want the process to be repeated and continue. <br />5 <br />