Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11072002 BSC Agenda Item 5 2 rK Building & Standards Commission Municipal Building, Bill Watson Conference Room 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD Meeting Minutes September 5, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: James McDaniel, David Kehn, Jorge Jimenez-Marcos, Darryl Friday, Bryant Slimp Les Albin and Muddy McDaniel (Muddy McDaniel arrived at 6:10 p.m. after agenda item 6 had already begun) MEMBERS ABSENT: James Collier, Patrick O'Donnell COUNCIL LIASION: Marilyn Griffin,present STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Mack,James Dougherty, and Sallye Clark Anne Whitlock,ZPC member present 1. Call to Order. With a quorum,present James McDaniel called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Citizens who wish to be heard. None. 3. Citizens who wish to address agenda items. None 4. Designation of voting members. James McDaniel stated per the alternate voting schedule that Jorge Jimenez-Marcos is the voting member for the meeting. 5. Meeting Minutes. Les Albin made a Motion'to approve the August 1, 2002 minutes as amended. David Kehn seconded the motion. AYES: James McDaniel, David Kehn, Les Albin and Bryant Slimp. NOES: None. ABSTAIN:Jorge Jimenez-Marcos. Motion passed. Minutes approved. 6. Variance Request. Gary Spangler, owner 5808 Charlotte gave a brief overview relating to a variance request at 5808 Charlotte. Gary Spangler stated that he closed on the property on June 28, 2002 and expressed interest in a pool and the permit was filed in mid July by Platinum Pools. Mr. Spangler did not become aware of the current Pool ordinance until August. Stacy Ward with Platinum Pools stated that the wall of the pool would be 6 inches from the rear property line. Gary Spangler stated for the record that his request to BSC was to grant a variance to allow a swimming pool to be located in the required 5' setback. He stated that he was aware that he would be in violation of the Ordinance and he would like the BSC to decide if he can proceed with his plans for the swimming pool. Jorge Jimenez-Marcos stated that he will recluse himself from voting since he knows the engineer on the pool plans. The voting members for agenda item six are as follows: Muddy McDaniel, David Kehn, Bryant Slimp, Les Albin and James McDaniel. James McDaniel made a motion to grant the variance as requested. David Kehn seconded the motion. AYES: none. NOES: Muddy McDaniel, David Kehn, Bryant Slimp, and Les Albin. ABSTAIN: James McDaniel. Motion passed. Variance denied. Building and Standards Commission Minutes September 5,2002 Meeting 2 7. Drainage/ Site Plans. Anne Whitlock, ZPC member gave a general overview of how drainage issue came about and a status of what is being reviewed by the Drainage Subcommittee and possible amendments to the ordinance. See attached Overview and possible ordinance amendment. James Dougherty gave an overview of the Ordinance Amendment dated 9-3-02. James Dougherty stated that the official site plan is more than just a drainage site plan and that all the information put into it will be recorded with the Real Property Records as a permanent record. This document would put people on notice of the requirements of the Ordinance. James Dougherty and Dennis Mack stated that ZPC wants advice, consent and concurrence from BSC on the Drainage issue. James McDaniel suggested that BSC take the 9-3-02 ordinance amendment and Anne Whitlock's remarks read them and bring back to next months meeting with comments and points. There was no action taken on this item. ,,,,O& 8. Fire Safety materials. Les Albin stated that this subject matterrom a ZPC agenda item of discussion of side setbacks. A suggestion was made at that meeting that it would be appropriate to make some material of house fire resistant. Les Albin asked what the Development Services Division is currently doing in the field to ensure 1 hour rating compliance. Les Albin requested more detailed information from Dennis Mack to be presented at next months meeting on what is being done in the field by way of inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the International Building Code in relation to Fire Safety Material. BSC will continue discussion of this item at next months meeting. No action was taken on this item. 9. Building Standards Questionnaire/Survey. James McDaniel suggested tabling this agenda item until next month when Brant Gary can attend the meeting. BSC members need to bring the survey material that was handed out to next months meeting. No action was taken on this item. 10. Staff Comments. a. Use of purple PVC Primer and Schedule 40 PVC (Proposed Amendment)- Dennis stateithat James Dougherty, City Attorney is in the process of finalizing the amendment and then will be forwarded to City Council for approval. b. Response to BSC's request to staff concerning Consulting Engineer review of foundations-Dennis Mack handed out a memo to all BSC members the night of the meeting. 11. Commission Member Comments. David Kehn stated that he is working on the answer to the NFPA72 requirement 12. Adjournment. Les Albin made a motion to adjourn. Bryant Slimp seconded the motion. AYES: James McDaniel, Les Albin, Bryant Slimp, Jorge-Jimenez Marcos and Darryl Friday. NOES: None. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 2002. James McDaniel, Chairman ATTEST: Sallye A. Clark, Planning and Development Assistant ATTACHMENT TO BSC 9-5-02 MEETING MINUTES City of West University Place*Texas Memo To: Building Standards Commission Members From: Dennis Mack, Building Offici Date: September 5,2002 Re: Motion by BSC At the regular meeting of the Building Standards Commission on August 1,2002 Les Albin made a motion to request staff to develop a procedure to have all foundation and structural plans reviewed by an independent Engineer licensed in the state of Texas. This motion was passed by a 3 to 2 affirmative vote. Commissioners, as you may remember this same request and recommendation on behalf of the BSC was reviewed by the city council back in April of this year. Staffs position on this matter was presented to City Council in the form of a memo that I had prepared on April 15, 2002(see attached)and addressed to Michael Ross,who at that time was our Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works. In view of the fact City Council denied BSC's request on this subject I see no reason to change my position on this matter.Therefore I would like to thank the BSC for their request and concerns on this issue,but at this time I respectfully decline their request as well. PC: City Manager Assistant City Manager/Director Public Works ATTACHMENT TO BSC 9-5-02 MEETING MINUTES City of West University Place*Texas Memo To: Michael Ross Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works From: Dennis Mack, Chief Building Official Date: April 15,2002 Re: Foundations The Building Standards Commission is of the opinion the city has experienced excessive failure of residential foundations due to improper designs by Professional Engineers.As a result of this belief they have made a request that the city council discuss the possibility of requiring the city to hire a consulting engineer to review the engineering of foundation plans submitted for permits. It is my opinion the city should not proceed with this proposal for the following reasons. 1. The belief the city has experienced excessive foundation failure due to improper designs by professional engineers is not backed by any methodical study by a Forensic engineer but was simply a conclusion reached by counting the number of foundation repair permits issued by the city in a one or two year period. There was no attempt to establish the cause of foundation failure within the city,nor was their any attempt to authenticate the number of repair permits constituted an excessive percentage of foundation failures for this region of the state.The City of West University Place as well as the surrounding communities is largely made up of areas with clayey soils that shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture content. This shrinking and swelling may cause movement of residential foundations that adversely affects the residence. Other factors may influence foundation performance as well. Some of these factors are inadequate construction,the degree of compaction of the supporting soils,landscaping practices,leaking plumbing, and drainage slope instability. 2. Addressing the cause or causes of foundation movement may preclude the need for structural repairs or reduce the risk of continuing foundation movement after structural repairs. Implementing non-structural recommendations and monitoring foundation performance prior to implementing structural repairs may be a prudent approach,provided it is cost effective and the owner is willing to allow time to foundations.doc ATTACHMENT TO BSC 9-5-02 MEETING MINUTES measure the effects of such measures. Some of these non-structural remedial measures are as follows: a. Vegetation Alteration. Trees or large shrubs near the foundation cause or could potentially cause soil shrinkage under the foundation. Removal of these trees or shrubs may prevent soil shrinkage and may even result in at least partial restoration of settled areas of the foundation. Removal may, however,result in foundation upheaval due to soil moisture increase or settlement due to root decay. If the trees and shrubs pre-date the structure, pruning of tree branches may be a more prudent approach. b. Root Barriers. If pruning tree roots is not either effective or practical,a root barrier can often mitigate the effects of the tree(s)by limiting root growth under the foundation. Root barriers generally consist of a vertical barrier of low grade concrete, Plexiglas, sheet metal,chemically treated geo-fabric or other appropriate material. c. Gutters and Downspouts. The absence of roof guttering around a structure can cause both erosion and the ponding of water near the structure. If either of these conditions is present,the addition of gutters and downspouts should be installed. Downspouts should be of adequate size to drain roof runoff during typical storms. Extending downspouts at least 5 feet past the edge of the foundation and past the edge of all planting beds is recommended. d. Drainage Improvements. Since foundation movement in expansive soils is related to soil moisture content,it is important to maintain positive drainage away from the foundation to reduce the risk of foundation upheaval. Drainage improvements are appropriate both to address existing upward foundation movement and as preventative measures. e. Surface Grading. Performance based surface grading should be followed that insure the generally desired flow direction is maintained and the requirement that water ponding near the foundation be followed. A minimum slope of 5% (e.g.5 feet in 100 feet)away from the foundation for at least 5 feet and 2% (e.g. 2 feet in 100 feet) along any Swale is recommended. f. Erosion Control. Added soil should have adequate clay content to minimize water movement through the added soil. Retaining structures of significant height should be designed using appropriate soil and structural parameters. The slope should not exceed 15% to minimize erosion yet provide drainage. g. Surface Water Drainage Systems. When inadequate slope exists to provide surface drainage by grading alone,underground drainage systems should be installed. These systems typically consist of one or more • Page 2 ATTACHMENT TO BSC 9-5-02 MEETING MINUTES drainage inlets connected to a solid(not perforated)piping system. If possible, the system should drain by gravity. Otherwise,it may be necessary to include a sump pump in the system. The ground surface should be graded to slope to the drainage inlets. As long as the pipe is of sufficient size, downspouts in the area may be connected to the drain system. Cleanouts should be included for maintenance of the system. h. Subsurface Water Drainage Systems. Shallow(sometimes "perched") subsurface water can cause soil-swelling resulting in foundation upheaval. This condition can often be mitigated by the installation of a subsurface water drainage system, often referred to as a"French"drain. Although a true "French"drain is simply a trench filled with clean stone or gravel, subsurface water drainage systems usually should include a perforated pipe at the bottom of the trench and a geotextile around the pipe and/or the aggregate in the trench to prevent fine-grained soils from reducing the effectiveness of the drain system. Cleanouts for maintenance of the system should be included. Gutters and downspouts should not be connected to this type of drain system. i. Moisture Barriers. Moisture barriers have been effectively used when migration of moisture under the foundation has either occurred or is anticipated. Moisture barriers can be either vertical or horizontal,but vertical moisture barriers are believed to be more effective,depending on the depth to which they are installed. Moisture barriers generally consist of impermeable plastic sheeting or other appropriate material that is attached to the edge of the foundation. Moisture barriers can be used in conjunction with Root Barriers and/or Subsurface Water Drainage Systems. 3. If the city hires a professional engineer to check another professional engineer's work and corrections are made as a result of this review the city may open itself up for future liability. Some of the sections of the Texas Engineering Practice Act that concern me the most are as follows: §131.152. Engineers Shall Be Objective and Truthful. (e) Engineers shall only issue work conforming with the board's sealing rules. However, an engineer,as a third party, may alter,complete,correct, revise,or add to the work of another engineer when engaged to do so by a client,provided: (1)the client fumishes the documentation of such work submitted to the client by the first engineer; (2) the first engineer is notified in writing by the second engineer of the engagement immediately upon acceptance of the engagement;and (3) any work altered, completed, corrected, revised, or added to shall have a seal affixed by the second engineer. The second engineer then becomes responsible for any alterations, additions or deletions to the original design including any effect or impact of those changes on the original engineer's design. §131.155. Engineers' Responsibility to the Profession. (c)The engineer shall not: • Page 3 ATTACHMENT TO BSC 9-5-02 MEETING MINUTES (2) maliciously injure or attempt to injure or damage the personal or professional reputation of another by any means. This does not preclude an engineer from giving a frank but private appraisal of engineers or other persons or firms when requested by a client or prospective employer; §131.166. Engineers'Seals. (a) The purpose of the engineer's seal is to assure the user of the engineering product that the work has been performed by the professional engineer named and to delineate the scope of the engineer's work.The engineer shall utilize the designation "P.E." or the titles set forth in the Texas Engineering Practice Act (Act), §1.3. Physical seals of two different sizes will be acceptable: a pocket seal (the size commercially designated as 1-5/8-inch seal) or desk seal (commercially designated as a 2-inch seal)to be of the design shown in this subsection. Computer-generated seals may be of a reduced size provided that the engineer's name and number are clearly legible. (k) Work performed by more than one engineer shall be sealed in a manner such that all engineering can be clearly attributed to the responsible engineer or engineers. When sealing plans or documents on which two or more engineers have worked,the seal of each engineer shall be placed on the plan or document with a notation describing the work done under each engineer's responsible charge. (I) Licensed employees of the state, its political subdivisions, or other public entities are responsible for sealing their original engineering work; however, such licensed employees engaged in review and evaluation for compliance with applicable law or regulation of engineering work submitted by others,or in the preparation of general planning documents, a proposal for decision in a contested case or any similar position statement resulting from a compliance review, need not seal the review reports, planning documents, proposals for decision, or position statements. • Page 4