HomeMy WebLinkAbout07071994 BSC Minutes. BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD.
JULY 7, 1994
6:30 P.M.
MINUTES
The Building and Standards Commission convened in the Municipal
Building, 3800 University Blvd. in the City of west University
Place on July 7, 1994 for a regular session with the following
members Present: Vice Chairman Craig DuCote, Les Albin, James
McDaniel, James Todd and Craig Hughes. Absent were Chairman Drew
McManigle and members Evelyn Dravis, James Collier and Roy Harper.
Present from the City were Dennis Holm, Building Official and
Susan Thorn, Building Secretary.
The first item on the agenda was the Hearing of Residents.
None Present.
The second item on the agenda was consideration of the property
located at 3224 Amherst, West 75' of Lot 2, Block No. 49, West
University Place 2nd Addition, a request filed by Dr. & Mrs. David
Wray for a variance to finish out the third floor attic space.
• Architect Leslie Barry Davidson explained that her firm designed
the house for Dr. and Mrs. David Wray. Her firm started working
on the project as early as 1985. The project was completed in
1988. She explained that the house was permitted in 1987 when Mr.
Wayne Perry was the Building Official. Ms. Davidson explained
that the permitted plans showed 2 x 6's studs and a third floor to
be used as a playroom in the future. The Wray's at this time
decided not to use this space and the space was not sheetrocked.
She explained that the City of Houston under the Uniform Building
Code 500 s.q. allows 2' x 6' studs with 1/2 sheetrock throughout
the entire house. She stated that just across the city limits you
would be allowed to do this and she did not feel this constitutes
a fire hazard. She also explained that there were plans to put a
sprinkler system on the third floor even though this would be very
expensive.
Mrs. Wray, owner of the property explained that she really did not
feel that she wanted to install a sprinkler system at this time,
not only was it very expensive, but she was very concerned that
something could malfunction and the sprinkler system could go off
and ruin her house and her furnishings. Mrs. Wray further
explained that there are two casement windows for egress and right
below there is a roof to a little utility porch. There is another
diamond shaped window in another part of the third floor, but this
window is not operable. Ms. Davidson explained that there are two
~ sets of stairs exiting from the second floor to the first floor
and air conditioning is already there.
• Ms. Wray stated that it would be easy to get someone just to hang
sheetrock, but she felt very strongly about this work being
permitted and she wanted to be able to sell her house with a third
floor gameroom.
Mr. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of
view. He explained that this house was permitted under a
different administration and this was handled in a different
manner and that when he first spoke to Mrs. Wray and Ms. Davidson
that they were very surprised when he told them they would not be
able to finish out the third floor without 5/8" throughout the
entire house.
Mr. Holm stated that he was not aware that there was 5/8"
sheetrock on the stairways and on the ceilings already. Mr. Holm
explained that in most cases there is not such thing as an
exit/access corridor, but because of the way it has been
constructed it could be considered an exit/access corridor and
could be considered one hour protected and that does provide a
safe margin in that area. The actual protection is for one thing
only and that is to get outside. He explained that a one hour
rated assembly would have twenty minutes doors in it. He stated
if you looked at it in that respect, parts of the one hour
assembly are not one hour.
• Craig DuCote explained the request for variance to finish out the
third floor included the conditions of 5/8" sheetrock being
installed in the air conditioned portion of the attic along with
the installation of a residential sprinkler system. He asked the
applicant if this was now being amended. Ms. Davidson stated, yes
they were amending the original application to not have the
sprinkler system because of her clients concerns about a sprinkler
system malfunctioning.
Les Albin explained that when Mr. Perry was approving plans back
during the time this house was built, Mr. Perry required either a
balcony outside the egress window or the entire house sheetrocked
with 5/8" sheetrock.
Ms. Wray explained that they had spent a lot of time having the
outside of the house elevations designed with custom iron work and
these plans were permitted by Mr. Perry without the 5/8"
sheetrock. She said they did not finish out the third floor the
house was built because they did not feel they needed the extra
space at that time and that their younger children are older now
and want their game room. She felt she was a fairly innocent
party to this, and she relied on the structure being permitted.
She explained she had a little less than 500 square feet that has
a significant effect on the value of her home. Mrs. Wray
explained that she was not willing to put metal stairwells on the
• outside of her house. Mrs. Wray explained she was happy with the
outside of her house.
• She explained the sprinkler made her very nervous because she
didn't want one to ruin the inside of her house through one being
to be set off. She had multiple means of getting out, she had 2 x
6 studs and 5/8" sheetrock in the stairwells. She stated she is
asking for the Board to allow her to put 5/8" in the playroom and
finish it out. She is living there with her children and she felt
it was safe.
The Board Members asked what the difference was between the Ashe
house which had a variance granted for something similar and this
house Mr. Holm explained that the Ashe house had a balcony and
they provided a retractable ladder.
Les Albin expressed his concerns that he that there was not a way
to get from the casement window to the utility room.
Jim Todd stated he was concerned that a child would not be able to
get from the window to the roof. Craig Hughes stated that this
room is designed to be a playroom not a sleeping room. Mr. Holm
explained that if this were a sleeping room this would have met
the code.
After a brief discussion James McDaniel made a motion to grant the
variance based on the opinion that 5/8" in the stairwells provides
• one hour fire rating and not require the installation of the
sprinkler system.
This motion was seconded by James Todd.
Voting aye: Craig DuCote, Craig Hughes, James McDaniel and James
Todd. Les Albin abstained from voting.
The next item on the agenda was consideration 3602 Albans, Lot 5A,
Block 93, West University Place Second Addition a request filed by
E. J. Buckingham III for a variance to not install a sidewalk.
Craig DuCote read the original decision from March 5, 1993.
"Drew McManigle made a motion to grant the variance allowing the
Owner Mr. Buckingham to keep the magnolia tree with the
stipulation that in the future if the tree were to die or be
removed that within 30 days the Owner or Subsequent Owners of the
property would take steps to place sidewalk there. This motion
was seconded by Carolyn Hodgins. All voting aye."
Mr. Buckingham explained since that time the magnolia tree had
since died and he wished to plant another tree instead of placing
a sidewalk.
•
• Mr. Holm gave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm presented some
pictures that he had taken that afternoon. He explained the
pictures show along the street where there are trees in the way of
a future sidewalk. Mr. Holm explained that at sometime during
the infrastructure work sidewalks would be put in along with curb
and gutters. Mr. Buckingham stated that during his conversations
with Mr. Menville the Director of Public Works that because of the
number of trees along that side of the street that sidewalks would
probably not be put in.
After a brief discussion Les Albin made a motion to grant a
variance to not have a sidewalk as long as a Class I tree be
planted. James McDaniel seconded the motion. All voting aye.
The next item on the agenda was the consideration of the revised
draft for foundation inspections.
Mr. Holm explained that the members have the latest draft of the
amendment. He had also included copies of a letter from an
engineer with his comments. He explained that he had very little
response to this draft. He explained that any comments he
received he wished to fax to the Board Members. Mr. Holm asked
that the members take the time to read the response from the
engineer over. A copy of the engineer's letter is included as a
• apart of these minutes.
The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the change in
wiring size. Mr. Holm also distributed copies of the new
ordinance concerning electrical requirements. Mr. Holm explained
that he did not have a problem when everything is wired correctly.
He explained when you use 14 gauge wire a lot of things change in
a short period of time. This This a copy of this ordinance draft
is included as a part of these minutes.
After a brief discussion James Todd made a motion that a letter be
drafted to the City Council giving the Boards approval of the
ordinance change for electrical. Les Albin seconded this motion.
All voting aye.
i
• James McDaniel made a motion to approve the minutes from the March
3rd Meeting with changes. This motion was seconded by Les Albin.
All Voting aye.
James McDaniel made a motion to approve the minutes from the June
2nd, 1994 Meeting. This motion was seconded by Les Albin. All
Voting aye.
James McDaniel made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This motion
was seconded by Les Albin. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
ATTE5T:
SECRETARY
•
.
•
Mr. Dennis Holm July 6, 1994
Chief Buiiding Official
City of West University Place
Dear Mr. Holm:
Ms. Evelyn P. Dravis, who is on the Building Standards Commission, asked
me to see that you receive the enclosed comments on the revised WUP
draft amendment to tighten the requirements for foundations.
Evelyn is in Dallas this week attending a conference and will not be able
to make the meeting scheduled for this Thursday. The enclosed comments
~ were provided by our engineer, Mr. Randy Riddell, at the request of Evelyn.
Evelyn felt she was not in a position to evaluate the engineering aspects
of the proposed amendment. Randy is a citizen of West University Place,
our neighbor, and has worked on our recent foundation problems and
remedies.
If you have any questions, please call me at 667-9844.
Most sincerely yours,
~~~~~
Jeffrey J. Dravis
JJD/ms
/enclosures
~
Comment to WUP Building Standards Comm. 28Jun94 Page 4
CERTIFICATES AND AP'FIRMATION FOR A FOUNDATION " AS
P'ORMED~~
Surveyor's CertiScate:
This rovision requires an as-built foun.dation forms placement
dra showing sufflcient views to depict all getback and yard
rcgula ons. The content and format of this drawing must be
speci8ed. This drawing will be cgpensive.
Do foundations t~ithout forms requirc this certiflcat~? These might
be precast concrete slabs or beams, or steel beams on drilled piers,
or driven piles.
The "proposed foundation" must be clearly specified to prevent
ambfguity. This speciScation must include the correct revision
num.ber of the foundation drawing{s) which show the foundation
deaign.
Enginecr's Certiflcate:
(3) The engineer is aot qualifled to certify anyone else's engineering
registration. onlp his own.
(5} The cngineer is not qualified to certify any companp's
complianee with "all City requirements" and is not an authorlty on
"recog,nized and reputable" qualities of companies.
The term "soils investigation agencp or IIrm" is so broad as to
include agrlcultural soils labs. Say what you mean.
Permittee's Affirmation:
(4) The peaalty for "misleading" is revocation of the City permit.
How complicated is that? How punitive is tb.at? 'What are tb.e
consequences to the City for discovery of a violation of this
afSrmation after construction is complete?
Comment to WUP Building Standards Comm. 28Jun94 Page 3
The conditions for the eapiration of the awner-occupant's selection
option must be specified.
The engineer retained by the owncr-occupant represents his clicnt's
interest; if retained by the Citp, the City's interest. These are
greatly different. The same engineer must be allowed the
professionallatitude to reverse his position on any matter govorned
by his client's interest. ff he changes from one client to a.nother.
What ie the responsibility of the City Building Inspector?
(2j E. (i) For the Final Report. the "proposed foundation" has become
an accomplished faet. The as-built foundation should be the subj~ct
of th~ PYnal Report, not the "proposed foundation".
(if) This is an unreasonable burdcn of unnecessary duplication of
doeuments. SpeciSc reference to permit number. drawln.g number,
revision number, and view~ detail, or scction number would be
snfScient.
Each tcst report should be preceded by a quotation of the relevant
criterion and a citation of the passagc in the sp~cification where
that criterion is found.
(iv) The form of thc Final Report must be presented with the
proposed ordinaacc for revfew of contcnt.
(2~ F. What is "late"? Is it the filing of the r~port, or the conduct of
the observation of the construction activity? Clearly. the
observation could not be certified if conducted after the fact.
This is clearly a doubl~ standard. The late report. bp deSnition,
must contain a r~gistered engineer's certiIIcatfon that the work
"complies" with the design. Haw docs this subordinate to the
buil official's prcgumption of "accordance with all probability"?
The b ding o~icial is being held to a much more lenient level of
responsibility than the licensed engineer.
(ii) What is m~ant by "the problem"?
DEFINITIONS:
owner-occupant Ar~ "spec builderg" eaempted from all
"owner-occupant" requir~ments by this dcIInition?
"SR" This isc an abbreviation for "soils report". Use one
or the other, but not both together.
Comment to WUP Building Standards Comm. 28Jun94 Pagc 2
(iii) The design engineer`s specifications have been deleted from this
requirement. These should be included in the permit.
(2) B. (ii) The constructfon process must be a carefully sequenced
series of events to produce a qualitp building. Timing events are
critical. The time requircd to "duly flle" may allow the "site" to
become not "ready" becausc of rain or othcr incident befare the
concrete can be placed. The procedure to "dulp filc" musct bc
streamlined to keep pace with a proper construetion effort.
Rather than "a registered professional engineer". perhaps "the
licensed engineer who designed the fouuuclation" would be the best
qualiSed to judge that the construction satisfies the design
requiremeuts. It is no bene£~t to either the homeowner or the City
to have a licensed engineer, who is ignorant of thc design~ look at
the piec~s the contractor put in the ground.
The suggested wording provides the contractor the low-cost
opportunity of ha~two different licensed e~ineers apply their
uncoordinated. but o cial. approval to the wor - oae to the design.
one to the inspection. This is a perpetuation of th~ deceptive
practice which is now common in the residential construction
industry.
If the design engineer cannot inspect the construction of his work.
the inspecting enginoer shauld be required to accept liability for the
work he inspects. In the simplest casc. the inspecting engineer
would be obligated to be sufficiently familiar with the design
engineer's work to be qualified to jud.ge that the constructfon
satis8es the design requirements.
L~e to a similar effect is in the 1S February 1990 versioa of
the uilding code.
In any case. the homeowner and th< City must have a traceable lin~
of responsibility in the event defects are discovered in the work.
The importaat characteristic of the involvement of licensed
engineers is cagnfzant continuity.
(~) C. How must "another person" be "design.ated in advance"? If this
is to be by the standard enginaer selectfon form~ so state. If by some
other pracedure. describe in sufficient detail.
(iii) The phrase "all times when coneret~ measurements are madc" is
too broad. Concrete is frequently measured without the need for an
engineer's observation. The specific category of ineasurements must
be described.
(2) D. This provision is patently illegal. The engineer's fee is aot
known prior to selection. The perm~ttee cannot be required to pay
for the City's d~cision.
Comment to WUP Building Sta.ndards Comm. 28Jun94 Page 1
FROM: IZANDY RIDDELL. PROPRIETOR
C.RANbOLPH R.IDDELL~ P.E.
DATE: 28 June 1994
TO: Ms. Evelyn Dravis
WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE BUILDING STANDAR.DS COMMITTEE
RE: REVISED DRAF'r AMENDMENT TO TIGHTEN THE
R~l~UIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATIONS APRIL 11, 1994
GENERAL REMARKS:
What the citizens of the City of West Universitp Place need in the
ordinances is the removal of evasive cover from the process of
correcting d~fective eonstruction. The citizens of the city are
homeowners, not home builders. The ordinances should be written
to serve the resident citizenry.
For th~ bene$t of the homeowner and the City. the engineering of
the foundation should be conducted in such a manner as to leave a
traceable Iiae of aut~ority and r~sponsibility which will speed the
resolution of anp future disputes. To this end. the licensed engineer
who prepares the design should also iaspect the construction of that
design. This individual is most qualitied to judge that the
accomplishad work satisfles the design requirements.
In the concrete construction industry. the verb "place" is preferred
to "pour".
ITEMIZED CONIIKENTARY:
(2) A. The "registered professional engineer" who designs the
foundation must be registered in the Stat~ of Tegas. Aftcrwardg. in
this document, refer to this individual as "desfg.n enginee~'.
(i) Replace "cngince~" with "design engineer".
(ii) The certiIIcation requiremcnts of the Amcrlcan Association for
Laboratory Accreditation should be reviewed in detail before being
adopted bp ordinance. If these provisions do not provide a clear
beneSt to the homeowner and the City. the requirement should not
be imposed by ordinance.
The requirement that the soil report mvst be prepared under the
authority of an engineer registered with the Tegas State Board of
Registration for Professional Engineers would be a minimum.
The core sample locations must be speei$cd by the "design
engin~er". For boring groups greater than two. the lang ,age should
require that at least two of the borings must be at least fi~ty feet
apart. This provision should also require that a soil sample be taken
at thc recommended bearing stratum~ th.at that sample be subjected
to egpansion potential tests and consolidation t~sts, and thaf those
test results be presented in the soil report.
-"""'"'"`'" JUL-07-' 94 1 S: 54 I D: TEL NO : 7138S01417 t# 164 Pg2
• Ordinance No.
AN pRDINANCE RELATTNG TQ ELECTRICrTY; AMENDING T~iE
CODE OF ORbINANCES OF TH~ CITY OF V(lEST LJN'TVERSITY
PLACE, TEXAS TO PROHYBIT THE U'SE OF CE~ZTAIN VV'YRE AN~D
CONDUCTORS; AND CONT'ATNING FINDINGS AND PRO'VISIQNS
RELATrNG TO TI-~E SUBJECT.
WI~EREAS, metnbers of the Buildings & Standards Commission and the
Building Official have recommended that the City increase the minimum wire size
for new vc~iring in thc City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that increasing t12e minimum size of
wiring will help prevent the danger of electrical overloading, fires, etc.;
NOW T~-IEREFORE,
~
BE rT ORDAIN~D BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'UV'EST
UNTVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS:
Section 1. That the Code of Ordinances of the City of West University
Place, Texas is hereby amended tio read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 8-26. Wirea and Conducto~s.
(a) Nohvithstanding any other code pro~vision or ordinance to the contrary, it shal! be
unla«~ful for ans~ person to install or usc eny of the following in connection ~~ith elcctrical work
for any building or other structuro in the City:
(1) an)~ aluminum Kire or conductor; or
(2) any wire srualler than gauge 12/2 AWG, or
(3) any µ~ire ~vithout a separate ground, either in the samo cable or in tlie
same conduit.
(b) It is an ~t~ttlative defcnso, in eny proceoding to enforce tliis scction with respect
to wire srualler than gauge 12/2 AWG or lacking a separate ground, that the wire in questioa was
instatlod in strict acCordance with an elecWcal perniit issucd by the Ciiy prior to the offective
date of this sectian, as amendod.
~
WIRING ORDINANCE, b17:1owire.54
Page 1
u
JUL-0?-'94 14:27 ID:
TEL N0:7138801417 #162 P03
Section 2. AlI ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict only.
Section 3. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other
part of tl~is ordiuance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
shall ever be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent ~
jurisdiction, neitller the remainder of diis ordinance, nor the application of sucl~
word, pluase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance to
any other persons or circumstances, shall be af~ected tliereby.
Section 4.. The City Council off'icially finds, determines and declares that a
sufficient vvritten notice of d~e date, hour, place and subject of each meeting at
whicli tliis ordinance was discussed, considered or acted upon was given in the
manner reqaired by the Texas Open Meetings Act, as amended, and dlat each such
meeting has been open to the public as required b~ law at all times during such
discussion, consideration and acrion, The City Council ratifies, approves and
confinns such notices aiid the contents and posting thereof.
~
Section 5. 'Chis ordinance sl~all become effective on the tenth day following
its publication, as provided in the City Charter.
~ -----------------------•-------------._----------
'WTRING ORI7Ii~lrANCE, b 17:\owire.54
Page 2
JUL-07-'94 14:27 ID:
•
TEL N0:?138801417 _ tt162 P04
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING, this day of ____~
,19
Councilmembers Voting Aye:
Councilme~nbers Voting No:
Coui~cilmembers Absent:
PASSEb AND APPROVED ON SECOND REAI7ING, diis day of
,19
Councilmembers Voting Aye:
Councilmembers Voting No:
Councilmembers Abse~~t:
~
Sig~~ed:
Mayor
Attest: (Seal)
City SBCreta~y
R~viewed:
City Attorncy
~ WIRING O --------------------------------------------------•---------------------
RDINANCE, b17:\owire.54 Page 3