Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1994 Building Code Board of Appeals• BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 The 1994 Building Code Board of Appeals convened on site at 1400 Brackett's Point Road at 4:00 p.m. on January 26, 1994 to view the site conditions for the request by James and Joann Jundt to reconsider the requirement for a second exit from the third floor of the house. The following Board of Appeals members were present: Tom Anderson, Building Official from the City of Hopkins; James Hanson of Long Lake; Maureen Bellows, AIA; Theodore "Ted" Paulfranz, Fire Chief of Edina Fire Department; and Loren Kohnen, Building Official of Metro West Inspections. James and Joann Jundt were present as well as Stuart MacDonald, Minneapolis architect and Tom Lindberg, Project Architect of Beyer Blinder Belle in New York. Kraus- Anderson representatives were Steve Johnson and Gary Benson. Representing Orono City staff were Lyle Oman, Building Official; Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator and Lin Vee, Recorder. James and Joann Jundt conducted a tour of all three floors of their home explaining various historical and architectural features. The hearing reconvened at the Orono Council Chambers at 5:37 p.m. with all of the above noted people in attendance. Maureen Bellows presided as Chair. Mabusth stated that the issue is the requirement by the City for a second legal exit from the third floor based on the proposed level of use. Oman reviewed the City's position. The current Building Code requires that any structure over two stories requires two exits. A question to consider is if this situation should be grandfathered • in. The City's position is that this space is quite large and could have a large number of occupants making two exits appropriate for the size and proposed use of the room. Mr. Crosby's letter is referring to Section 104 within the Building Code which addresses additions, alterations, or repairs to existing buildings and structures. Oman would also argue that the home was built in the early 1900's when there was no building code but there probably should have been a second exit at that time. Oman referred to Section 203 in his correspondence dated October 14, 1993 on unsafe buildings that allows him to require a second exit in that space. Mr. Jundt requested that the letters from the Faegre & Benson attorneys, their letter of January 25, 1994 and letters from the architects be read into the official minutes. Chair Bellows asked for an informal poll of where each Board member stands on the issue. Anderson did not feel ready to comment and wanted to review the code section on unsafe buildings referred to earlier. Hanson stated his subjective reaction would be that with sufficient consideration of other devices he would be inclined to allow the building as it stands without requiring a second exit on the third floor. Paulfranz questioned the historical significance of this building. Mrs. Jundt confirmed the building was not currently on the official historical register but it could be. Mr. Jundt stated that • 1 • BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 some day it may be listed on the register but they did not want to spend additional time pursuing that option at this time. Mrs. Jundt added that the architects they have chosen specialize in restoration and have assured the Jundts that nothing has been done to destroy the historical value of the home. Mr. Jundt stated they had spent over a year researching architectural firms. Paulfranz continued that since they are dealing with an existing building with some historical character that he would be willing to look at alternative means of providing safe exiting. He referred to his experiences with fire fighting in larger homes noting that typically contents, fixtures, etc. would be the expected items to burn, not the structure itself. His concern would be a fire occurring in the kitchen, first or second floors that would block the only exit. He suggested looking at alternative means for "buying time" for exiting. Kohnen stated his first impression was that there would be no alternative but a second stairway. After touring the home, he felt there may be some options and agreed with Paulfranz. He noted that generally people don't burn to death but suffocate and the first reaction is to run to a stairway for escape. He agreed that a second means of exiting would be necessary and suggested an exit balcony made of wrought iron as a possible consideration. Hanson stated that another consideration must be future ownership of the property. Mr. Jundt responded that the City could require changes at any time according to the code. He added that the number of people living in the home and occupying the second and third floors will be • substantially fewer than the previous owners. Chair Bellows agreed there would be a demtensification of use and was not convinced a second stairway was necessary. She was concerned with second floor exits where most of the living would occur. She noted there were two exits from the Jundts' main living quarters. She felt the third floor would realistically not get a lot of use. She thought a telescopic or folding ladder might be a reasonable solution. She added that the continuation of the stairway to the third floor could be considered a hazard because smoke will rise on the stairways and may, in fact, worsen conditions on the third floor. She would like to pursue other means of providing a secondary exit noting there are roof lines to consider. Mr. Jundt stated that putting a stairwell in the room would make it unusable and they would consider abandoning use of the room. Anderson asked for further comments about the reduction in the intensity of use. Mr. Jundt responded that there would not necessarily be a reduction of use in that specific room but in the entire use of the home. The Pillsburys at one time employed up to 18 people as well as staff that lived there. There were seven or eight bedrooms that have been consolidated to four bedrooms. On a day -to -day basis, only the two Jundts and a live -in couple would occupy the home. He sees the third floor as a room for private use with only a few people using it at one time. If there is a large party, guests would not go to third floor. Anderson asked if the two bedrooms existed in the past and were actively used. Mrs. Jundt commented that over the years • 2 • BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 they had been used as bedrooms and there was no plan to change that. The only change made to the third floor was the elevator. Mr. Jundt felt the large room had been used similarly to their proposed use as a game room. Mrs. Jundt thought it may have been used as a dance studio and playroom long ago. Anderson commented that this is a difficult decision as both the Building Official and Attorney are correct. He felt the Attorney had a good argument against the requirement of providing a stairway in that it may not be more hazardous than the existing occupancy. However, he agreed with Oman and had serious concerns about not providing a second exit. This is a large area, approximately 2800 square feet, with a kitchen beneath the room and heating equipment causing a potential hazard. He questioned if all areas had been explored and noted a situation in Wayzata where a metal stairs had been constructed that folds up to allow use of an upper level garage. Mr. Jundt did not think this type of ladder would be very good in this instance because of the lack of knowledge of operation by possible users in emergency situations. Chair Bellows asked each member of the Board if they felt a second exit was necessary and if it could be something other than a full stairway. Anderson responded yes to both questions. Hanson agreed. Paulfranz felt a "real" stairway would need to be provided and did not think a telescoping ladder, etc. would make sense. He would look for equivalent measures to buy time and protection for the occupants without requiring a second exit. Kohnen responded this was a difficult decision and would like a better description of the stairway location in the third floor. He clarified that the staircase leading from the first to second floors would be open with a door on the first floor. Mr. Jundt did not want the private bedroom quarters open to others using a stairway leading to the third floor. Kohnen stated he felt the code dictates the requirement for a second exit but would be willing to look at an alternative solution in this case because of the character of the house. Hanson suggested an exterior wrought iron stairway for a fire escape. Mrs. Jundt explained that the whole stairway idea has been explored thoroughly. They object to the safety of an external access and aesthetics of an exterior staircase. Paulfranz responded to the proposal of a 2 hour fire wall and did not think it would get at the issue which is to maintain the integrity of an exit from the point of smoke and heat travel. He noted several doors that are key elements and would normally be open. There are ways to set the doors so they would close automatically on a detector. If those doors closed, that level of the house could be isolated for a period of time. Preventing smoke travel through the building would be important. Secondly, he would look at ventilation mechanical systems. The Jundts confirmed there would be no ventilation as there is hot water heat and the air flow is whatever normally migrates through the house. He also noted some opportunities on the second floor for isolating the stairway. He pointed out that everyone should recognize the fact that people on the third floor would not get out and would be isolated on the third floor with a long wait for help. Paulfranz suggested upgrading the alarm system and additional detectors, which may cause some level of false alarm activity. Additional detectors address the issue of a large third floor capable • 3 • BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 of holding an occupant load that would require a second exit. Areas over 500 square feet and any third floor require a second exit. Unless "real" exits that provide isolation and separation from each other can be constructed, not much is gained. Kohnen reminded members that the natural response of anyone is to run for the stairway to escape. Paulfranz felt that since this is a single family dwelling, the owners have some level of control over who is in the home and what they are doing. He felt an alarm system that would provide equivalency based on automatic closing doors and detection equipment was a possible solution. It was confirmed that the alarm system to be installed was the same type as that installed in schools. Paulfranz inquired about the construction of the door to the game room. It is proposed to be a panel door with a 90 minute fire rating. He felt that door on a good magnetic closing would be appropriate. All doors under discussion could be installed in a similar fashion. The Jundts agreed they could conceptually follow these recommendations. Anderson thought the Board's responsibility is to either uphold the decision of the Building • Official which requires a second exit (or some modification under Section 106) or agree that he is in error. He did not think the Board should be involved in designing an equivalency but that should be left to the architect to design and submit to the Building Official for review. Other Board members agreed. • Hanson asked if there were alternative egress devices that should be further explored. Bellows thought discussion had lead to the decision that unless a "bona fide" fire escape could be provided that some type of equivalency may be acceptable. This equivalency may be in some area of refuge. Anderson questioned the ability of the Fire Department to access an area of refuge if it were created. He noted the size of the windows and distance to the third floor. Kohnen agreed with Anderson stating their decision was to agree with the Building Official or agree with the property owners. Bellows felt there had been conceptual thoughts about alternatives but not an attempt to design an appropriate equivalency. Exploration of possible alternatives helps the Board determine the reasonableness of their decision. 4 • BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 Paulfranz thought the Board agreed that the interpretation of the code is correct and a second exit is required. However, there are additional circumstances to be considered in this instance. He felt members should look beyond agreeing or disagreeing with the Building Official's decision. Mrs. Jundt stated they recognize that they should have a second egress on the third floor but because of historical significance, they are asking for forgiveness of that code. Mr. Jundt felt the attorney had shown legal precedence for allowing this exception noting there are few buildings such as Southways. A motion was made by Paulfranz, seconded by Hanson, to ask the owner to design an equivalency around an alarm system and door separations for the third floor. The Jundts assured members this would be acceptable. Anderson stated he would vote against the motion because he felt design should not be tied into a motion. They could either agree or disagree with the Building Official and give some guidance. Hanson and Kohnen agreed. Members decided the motion was premature and further discussion needed to take place. Paulfranz withdrew the motion. iChair Bellows asked if the motion to be called at this point is whether the Board believes there is justification for an exception in this case. Anderson agreed. • Oman referred to his original letter to the Board members for clarification of their role. Hanson thought the Board's recommendation could be that the Building Official consider an equivalency to the UBC requirements of a second egress. The Board does not have the right to "waive" the requirement for the second exit but can rule that an equivalency to that be determined which would be the Building Official's responsibility. Mr. Jundt did not feel this would resolve anything. Chair Bellows reiterated that the Board should stay away from design issues. Oman stated the Board could decide if they agree with his decision or not, or they could decide if he should accept one of the previous proposals. If the Jundts have a new proposal, it should come before the Building Official for his approval. They could then appeal again if they did not agree with the Building Official's decision. Mr. Jundt stated they did not want the process to be repeated and continue. 5 BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 Kohnen asked if no improvements were done to the third floor if Oman would still require the second exit. Oman responded that he would. He did not feel that providing a safe refuge was an acceptable alternative. He would also require the second exit if the third floor were closed off, unless completely sealed off so that no one could ever enter the third floor. Kohnen asked Oman if distance were also a consideration in his decision, questioning if the code states where the second exit needs to be located. Anderson felt the code stated the exit must be 1/2 the overall diagonal distance. Chair Bellows expressed her frustration because her sense of the meeting was leading to the fact that if the Board ruled that this case was an exception, that a potential problem exists because Oman has stated he has essentially only one answer. This seems to defeat the purpose of the Board. Oman thought the Board was to make a decision on whether a second exit was required. The Jundts could propose an alterative suggestion, which he would reject, and that would be brought before the Board. Oman felt a decision could be made at this meeting. They could make a suggestion and Oman could agree or disagree and the Board could decide. • Mr. Jundt suggested making a security and fire alarm system with any upgrades to their currently proposed system that would be necessary. is Oman rejected this proposal stating a second stairway is necessary. The Board now has the option of ruling on his decision. Hanson asked if the Board could legally "direct" Oman to consider other alternatives. The Board agreed they could not. Chair Bellows felt there was no reason for the Board if they were being put in the position of not being able to rule on the issue. She felt the only acceptable answer for Oman would be a second stair and if that were the answer, there would be no reason for the Board to exist. Kohnen disagreed. He thought they could not use the design approach because the State would not accept their recommendation. He felt they had to agree or disagree with Oman. Paulfranz thought the problem was that the Board agrees with Oman and recognizes the fact of the code requirement. The Board's job is to decide appeals of orders relative to the application and interpretation of the code. In other areas of the code, there is reference to reasonable problems. He feels a second open stairway is not the best design. 0 • 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 • BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Hanson, that the Board renders the opinion that, according to Section 104, none of the facts have indicated that the building is more hazardous or has been altered in such a manner that would require, under Section 104, a second stairway be added. Ayes 5, nays 0. Discussion continued. Anderson stated that based on what he had seen and heard, there are practical difficulties in providing a second stair. This is an existing building where two bedrooms were used. The remodeling of the third floor is not creating something that is more hazardous than what existed there previously. Therefore, with respect to Section 104, in his opinion a second exit would not be required. Hanson referenced Page 3, Section A, of the Attorney's letter noting the Board's finding that the building is "no more hazardous ... than before ... " Discussion of Section 203, City of Orono letter dated October 14, 1994, continued. Chair Bellows felt the Board was not discussing Oman's authority to determine a structure unsafe, but determining whether the structure itself was unsafe. Paulfranz asked to see the entire Section 203. • Chair Bellows noted this was a very subjective issue as to whether someone would deem a structure unsafe. Kohnen asked if Oman had issued orders to the effect that it was a dangerous building and a second stair was required. Oman responded he called it out on the plan review and that Chapter 33 applied. Kohnen questioned the reason Section 203 was to be considered since it discusses the building official's authority. Paulfranz agreed that Section 203 was not intended to apply in this case and no ruling was necessary on this section. By implication of ruling on Section 104, the Board has accepted the authority of the Building Official and found that the building was not hazardous. Mabusth explained that the findings of the Board will be sent to the State for further review. If the State overrules the Board, the property owners would come back to the Board of Appeals. The entire record of the hearing is forwarded to the State. The Jundts expressed their appreciation for all the work the Board has done and stated their intent is to comply with the code. Anderson stated his position that he felt Oman has the ability to issue orders under Section 203 and require a second exit. He encouraged the Jundts to continue to explore alternatives to the second exit. 0 BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS - JANUARY 26, 1994 Mr. Jundt noted they had explored many possibilities already and agree with the suggestions. Kohnen noted the inaccessibility to the third floor for fire fighters. Mrs. Jundt explained that the new windows open in one section rather than several small sections. Paulfranz also reinforced comments made throughout the hearing. He agreed with Kohnen that the fire department would have a difficult time with the size of the building and speed of fires. Mrs. Jundt noted that all electrical wiring and plumbing has been replaced. Bellows added that interior decorators should be involved in these discussions as it is the products from their environment that have the most effect. Kohnen thanked Oman for the work he has done on this issue. It shows his conscientiousness for the City of Orono. Kraus Anderson asked for direction as the contractor during this waiting period. Kohnen suggested they wait with any construction that would affect a possible stairway to the third floor. Anderson explained the State Board would either agree or disagree with the findings of the Board of Appeals. The typical time frame for a decision is approximately ten days. • The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maureen Bellows, Chair 0 9