01-26-1994 Building Code Board of Appeals

Home Browse Search

• BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 Hanson pointed out that Pages 2 and 3 of the Attorney's letter comment on this discussion. Section 106 states that "where there are practical difficulties involving carrying out the provisions of this Code, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, and that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the • Code, and that such modification does not lessen any fire - protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modification shall be recorded and entered in the files of the Code Enforcement Agency." Mabusth stated the necessary findings would have to be stated as to why there is disagreement. Members agreed they would have to state their reasons or the State would not accept their decision. Hanson continued that they should advise the Building Official to refer to Section 106 to work with the owner and further recommend that an equivalency be determined. Mr. Jundt asked that the equivalency be defined in terms of fire alarm, etc. so that future proposals won't be turned down as not being equivalent. Paulfranz suggested they separate themselves from the role of a building official. He felt the Board needed to give the appellant some clear direction as to alternatives and this was within the scope of their responsibilities. Chair Bellows thought if there was a definition as an area of refuge it would give direction . .. . . . This .. . . . . without specifically stating how to achieve this. This gives specific direction while avoiding the design issue. Kohnen disagreed with the idea stating an area of refuge does not take the place of an exit and never will. He reiterated that the Board should either agree or disagree with Oman. He did not think the Board could direct the Building Official to accept any proposals. Hanson again referred to the Attorney's letter, Page 2, providing a pathway through this matter. UBC Section 104 states "except when such addition or alteration will result in the existing building or structure being no more hazardous based on life safety, fire safety, and sanitation than before such additions or alterations are undertaken. " Anderson stated that he would agree with the Attorney because he believes that Section 104, as it is written, is not applicable to a stairway because there is no increase in the hazard. He would also agree with Lyle, according to Section 203 which gives him the ability to constitute the building as unsafe based on adequate egress. He felt the code was very clear that a building of 2800 s.f. on the third floor would require a second exit. He personally felt there were some designs that could be done that would be equivalent to a second exit. Chair Bellows asked for consensus of the group. 7