05-23-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Fursuant to UBC Section 105, the building official can approve and authorize the use of alternate materials or methods of construction. Uniform Building Code, § 105 (1985). The building official must find that the proposed alternate deign complies with the provisions of the code and is at least thr equivalent of the methods and materials prescribed. Id. Under UBC Section 106, the building official may grant "modifications" in individual cases upon a finding that the code's appl.c6tion is impractical. Uniform Commercial Code, § 106 (1985). Any modification must be in conformity with the intent and 3urpose of the code and may not "lessen any fire protection requirements." Id. om Jacob's has declined to approve a modification or an altf_i.a..e method of certification. Trinity Lutheran Church now se(KS to appeal that decision. The church cannot obtain relief from the City Council. Technically the City is not in the "loop" of decision making on interpretations of the State Building Code. This view was confirmed by the Attorney 'general's office. The building official is appointed '.)y the municipality but is the arbiter of and controlled by State law. There is no provision in statutes, rules, or UBC authorizing 1oc l governing authorities to grant variances from the code. As discussed above, the church has an appeal right to a local Board of Appeals. The City, however, has not created a Board. The City should create a Board of Appeals to rule on the church's request. This would permit the church to appeal to the Department of Administration. It appears unlikely that the church would succeed at the Board. The Section 106 modification provisio, xpressly prohibits modifications that lessen fire protectik-::-. requirements. _See Uniform Building Code, § 106 (1985). Moreover, such a modification would require finding a practical difficulty based on special individual reasons. Id. To date the church has only argued financial hardship. This seems an inadequate basis of hardship for providing a modification to the code. The alternate materials and methods provision also does net appear to be helpful to the church. See Uniform Building Code, § 105 (1965). The cha,ch has not yet proposed an alternate approach and therefore the building official has not ruled on such a proposal. As a practical matter, it appear doubtful that the church could Eropose an equivalent material or method that could meet the fire sprinkler requirement and reacrk an equivalent level of safety. Appeal to the Department of AdminisLration also seems unlikely *.) obtain a variant- for the church. Although the Commissioner has the right to review the building official's 1XI®