Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02021995 BSC Minutes~ • BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ~ REGULAR SESSION 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995 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 February 2nd, 1995 for a regular session with following members present: Chairman Drew McManigle via telephone, Vice Chairman Craig DuCote, Les Albin, Roy Harper, Evelyn Dravis, James Collier, James McDaniel and Craig Hughes. James Todd was absent. Also present from the City was Susan Thorn, Building Secretary. The first item on the agenda was the Hearing of Residents. No one was present. The second item on the agenda was consideration of property located at 3618 Robinhood, Lots 4A & 4B, Block 74, West University Place 2nd Addition filed by Judith A. Sere, a request for a variance to allow a public walk to end at the private walk and not to extend to the property line as required by City Ordinance. ~ The owner of the property Judith Sere explained her request. Mrs. Sere presented a letter addressed to the Building and Standards Commission. A copy is attached as a part of these minutes. Mrs. Sere explained that the house sits at the end of a dead end street, bordered by a drainage ditch. The street itself ends about halfway in front of the property. She explained that there is a large magnolia tree near the area where the sidewalk would have to be poured. She felt that to pour more concrete would cause stress to the roots of the tree. She is asking that the sidewalk be allowed to stop at the point where it meets the private sidewalk leading to the front door. Chairman Drew McManigle explained that Mr. Holm, Chief Building Official was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Holm had provided a letter to the Building and Standards Commission providing the City's point of view. A copy is attached as a part of these minutes. Mr. McManigle explained that he had spoken to Mr. Holm on the telephone regarding this application. Mr. Holm had told him that there had originally been a sidewalk located there that was partially covered by grass and mud and that it had been removed during construction of the new house. Mr. Manigle read Mr. Holm's comments into the record. Mr. Holm states in his comments 'that Ordinance number 1441 and Chapter 19 Section 19-51. requires sidewalks and that "no sidewalk is required along any given street ~ abutting a building site, if , before the period of construction, there never was an existing sidewalk in the same block face as the building site (on the same side of the ~ • given street). Mr. Menville the Public Works Director recommended the sidewalk be ~ replaced in its entirety: in order to remain in compliance with the existing Code requirements. The Building and Standards Commission will have to grant a variance to the applicant to provide relief of the sidewalk requirement.' The Board Members reviewed the plans for the residence to see the location of the magnolia tree in relation to where to sidewalk would be placed. The Seres explained that all the houses across the street have sidewalks with the exception of the house located directly across the street. Evelyn Dravis asked the Seres if there was a fence along the edge of the ditch. Mr. Sere stated that there was a cyclone fence along the ditch. Craig DuCote stated that this sidewalk would be a sidewalk leading to nowhere. After a brief discussion Les Albin made a motion to grant the variance to not have a public sidewalk past the point of the private walk with the stipulation that if the following occurs the sidewalk be extended to the edge of the property: 1) The magnolia tree dies . 2) In the event the street is extended further across the drainage ditch 3) The house across the street is demolished and a sidewalk is installed or a sidewalk is constructed in front of the existing house. This motion was seconded by Roy Harper. Voting was unanimous. The third item on the agenda was consideration of the property located at 3765 Plumb, Lot 5, Block 1, Sunset Terrace addition, filed by Mark Brooks, a request for a variance to allow a stairway greater than 44" in width have only one handrail instead of the two required by the Building Code. Mr. Manigle read Mr. Holm's comments into the record. A copy is attached as a part of these minutes. Mr. Holm stated in his letter that the 1991 Building Code, Sec. 1108.5.3., Handrails says: "Stairways less than 44 inches (1118 mm) wide and have a wall immediately adjacent to the treads on or both sides may have handrails on one side only. which shall be the side without a wall where such condition exists. Stairways lacking adjacent walts on either side shall have handrails on both sides regardless of width. Stairways ~ 44 inches (1118 mm) wide or greater shall be equipped with handrails at least on both . • sides." Mr. Holm explained in his letter that the method of ineasuring the stairway width • has been: (1) wall to edge of tread, (2) wall to wall, or (3) edge of tread to edge of tread. Because the measurement for the stair at 3765 Plumb is greater than 44 inches, two handrails are required. Mr. Mark Brooks, the owner explained that he had resided in the 3700 block for eight years. He explained that they were building a house directly across the street from where he now lives. He explained that the Architect's position is that this should be measured from the handrail and not the edge of the tread. Mr. Brooks provided a photo of the stairs for the members to look at. He explained that the stairs had a curve and at the top there is a small landing. He was not sure if a handrail were required how it could be installed. He explained that he did not feel that it would look good with a handrail. Mr. Brooks passed out copies of pages from the 1994 Southern Standard Building Code that no longer requires two handrails. A copy is attached as a part of these minutes. Mr. Collier asked what the measurement from the handrail to the wall was. Mr. Brooks stated that it was 43 1/4". It was his Architects interpretation that this was under the 44". • Roy Harper stated that he did not like to play around with life safety issues, but he did not feel that this was a particularly dangerous situation. Les Albin stated that the Architect should have checked this out before it got to this point. Mr. DuCote stated that it was the Building and Standards Commission job to decipher the code not tell the Builder how to build his house and that if the Code says it has to have a handrail it isn't their problem of how its going to get there or how it is going to look. Mr. Brooks asked if the Commission felt better about this issue since it was no longer in the 1994 Version of the code. Drew McManigle stated that the Commission has to make its decision based on what is on the books now. Drew McManigle stated that the code is fairly clear as to what it means. Jim Collier stated that he did not feel this had been blatant attempt to ignore a code requirement. Mr. Collier felt that this was a gray matter and that they were talking about a quarter of an inch or so. Evelyn Dravis stated that she agreed with Mr. Collier. ~ After a brief discussion among the Board Members it was decided that the Board ~ • Members needed to look at the actual stairway. ~ Craig DuCote made a motion to adjourn the meeting and reconvene on Thursday, February 9, 1995, after the Board Members have had a chance to look at the actual stairway. Craig Hughes seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY • ~