Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11051992 BSC Minutes. S BUILDING & STANDARDS COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1992 6:30 P.M. The Building and Standards Commission convened in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, in the City of West University Place, on November 5, 1992, for a Regular Session with the following regular members present: Nicholas Aschliman - Chairman, and Susan Freeman, also present were alternates Dale Reid and Margaret Wallace. Present from the City were Ed Beasley, Building Official and Susan Thorn, Building Secretary. HEARING OF RESIDENTS: None Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Margaret Wallace made motion to approve minutes from October 1, 1992 with revisions, motion seconded by Susan Freeman. ~ All voting aye. Voting no: none CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3201 UNIVERSITY BLVD., LOTS 6, 7 AND 1/2 OF 8, BLOCK 21, WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE ADDITION: The Owner of the property Dr. Jean Cukier, the Superintendent on for the project, Tommy Thompsen of Windham Builders and the architect for the project, Randall Hickey were present. Mr. Beasley presented the City's point of view. Mr. Beasley explained that this is concerning the home under construction at 3201 University at the corner of Buffalo Speedway and University. The original approved plans, which were given approval by the former Building Official Mr. Wayne Perry on April 11, 1991 show two bedrooms on the upper floor which empty into two smaller hallways each equipped with an escape hatch. The Building Code requires an emergency egress out of a bedroom in the form of a door or window. Neither of these bedrooms have any windows or doors leading to the outside for use as an emergency egress. What was approved on the plans are two escape hatches. The escape hatches are commercial steel escape hatches. The fire department would not be able to break down an escape hatch as they would a window or door. Mr. Beasley explained that Section 1105.4 & 1105.4.1 of the Building Code which deals with emergency egress openings states ~ s "These openings serve a dual purpose. Occupants can use these from the bedroom and for fire or rescue personnel can use the opening to enter the dwelling for the purpose of fighting the fire or evacuating building occupants who need assistance". It also states that a lock with a separate removable key is prohibited". In referring to the diagram of the escape hatch it shows in the specifications inside handles with padlock hasps. A child could conceivably put a padlock on it and it would not open. The Building Code also states "usability by the vast majority of possible occupants should be given consideration". The master bedroom is downstairs, normal occupants of the rooms upstairs would be children. He did not know if the the owners had children. Mr. Beasley further explained that the Building Code states that the evaluator of any system should bear in mind that the critical time of use may involve diminished visibility, inadequate lighting, and panicked reactions." Since these are not windows they do not let in any light, someone in a panicked situation would head towards the window because they would see some light, they would know that was the way out. These escape hatches are solid steel you can not see through them. There is a secondary door which makes it appear to be a closet. In such an emergency, it may not be obvious to a panicked person that you would need to go through a . closet to get out of the house. What they have actually built deviates from the approved plans. They have built two bedrooms emptying in to one smaller room with one escape hatch and the smaller room is equipped with five electrical panels, This is now an electrical/mechanical closet. Section 1101.1.2 of the Building Code also states "that the means of egress shall not be permitted through closets or similar areas." Randall Hickey, Architect explained that Mr. Perry recommended the escape hatch to be installed through roof for emergency egress. Mr. Perry never saw the detail for the escape hatch. A copy of this detail is included with these minutes. Mr. Hickey explained that the plans have been deviated from because of the dimmer panels for the light systems. These dimmer panels need air conditioning and they also need to be vented to the outside in case of any emergency. As far as the padlock hasp, he explained that a padlock is not needed to keep it secure. It has a drop latch to it. Mr. Hickey explained that this is not a typical type of residence as we know a residence to be. Mr. Beasley explained that the escape hatches for emergency egress do not meet the building code that requires a window or door leading directly to the outside in a sleeping area. u s Mr. Hickey explained that there are windows in the bedrooms, but they are fixed windows on a slope, however they are not within the 42" maximum height that windows in a typical residence are required to be at and the maximum height above the finished floor. There is natural light coming in from the north face and diffused natural light coming in from the south face. Mr. Hickey explained that the problem was escaping from these two areas to the outside and with the escape hatches this was resolved. This house is at seventy percent completion. The company that makes this hatch does not make this hatch for normal residences and as indicated on the details for the hatch, special provisions have been made for this particular residence. Mr. Beasley explained that the house is only framed, and the sheetrock has not been installed. The house is at a point that changes could be made. Mr. Beasley explained that Mr. Perry approved the two escape hatches, but the house is not being built as per City approved plans. He explained that now the bedrooms are back to not having any emergency egress. Only a single escape route is available in a closet area where the dimmer panels are located. • Dale Reid explained that he felt that the Fire Chief Terry Stevenson should review these plans before any decision is made. He stated that changes that have been made are so significantly different from the plans that Mr. Perry reviewed, that any claim by the owner regarding approval of those original plans are not even still an issue with regard to means for emergency egress. Margaret Wallace asked Mr. Beasley if they did go back to the original design would he give his approval. Mr. Beasley stated that he interpreted the original design to be in conflict with the Building Code. However, he could live with the original design as it was approved by the previous Building Official Mr. Perry. Dale Reid explained that because of the location of the dimmer panels, they would not be able to go back to the original plans. He also asked whether or not the windows that do exist could be changed to be accessible. Mr. Hickey explained that the windows are too high, and any changes to the window design would disturb the aesthetics of the house. Mr. Hickey explained that they have deviated from the original plans but they are asking for a variance from those plans. Nick Aschliman asked Mr. Hickey if they had a fire and safety expert on staff and if so could that person be consulted to render an opinion and give some input on this project. Mr. Hickey said ~ that they did not have such a person, however on other projects they use outside fire and safety consultants whom they could use for this project. i ' ~ i After some discussion among the board members they requested that the applicants have an outside fire safety company review the design and that Chief Stevenson also review the plans before meeting for a special session at a later date. Margaret Wallace made motion to adjourn, the motion was seconded by Susan Freeman. All voting aye. Voting No: none The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN Attest: ~ Secretary