Board of Code Appeals

BOARD OF CODE APPEALS REGULAR MEETING January 8, 2015 SUBJECT: The minutes of the Board of Code Appeals meeting of January 8, 2015. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stanek at 6:04 pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Douglas Harvey, Terry Measel, Thaddeus Stanek, Michael Viazanko, Building Official Frank Bayer, Plan Review Coordinator ABSENT: Laurel Johnson RECORDING SECRETARY: Rene Rosni APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Measel, supported by Harvey, to approve the agenda as presented. Yes: All. Absent: Johnson Motion carried. CONSIDERATIONS PG15-0039 Anderson Eckstin & Westrick Requesting Board Approval for: 1) Section 507.4, when property is split building (Target) will not have required 60’ of clearance due to adjacent existing building. 2) Table 602 and Section 706.1.1, existing wall which separates building is not rated. Jason Arlow, representing petitioner. Petitioner wants to split a large single piece of property into two pieces of property. Once the property line gets moved between the vacant existing suite and existing Target store, the wall would need to be a rated wall. Mr. Arlow indicated he was brought in at that point is to see if had rating. His findings determined that it is not a firewall. This building currently is an unlimited area building that has full fire suppression and 60 feet of yard or parking around it for fire access, an issue that will come up once it becomes two buildings. Target will no longer have the 60 feet around it since the buildings are connected. Moving the property line will trigger these new code requirements. Mr. Harvey asked the petitioner, in asking for this variance, what suggestion do you offer to meet the requirement for safety? Mr. Arlow responded by saying one idea was to request a variance for the 60 feet so Target could continue to be an unlimited building by itself. Once someone moves into the vacant suite, they could put up a firewall prior to occupying that space. Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Viazanko if putting up a firewall would meet the code requirements. Mr. Viazanko indicated there would need to be a fire rated wall in the existing vacant space. Mr. Harvey stated it still would not meet the code because there is no 60 foot separation. If they are separate parcels, you need a separation as per code. Mr. Viazanko stated that is correct, just having a firewall would not meet the code. Mr. Measel asked by splitting the two parcels, is there sufficient parking to support the square footage of buildings in each section? Board of Code Appeals January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 Mr. Viazanko stated there is no issue as it relates to parking. I have gone over this with the City Planner and there is no red flag as it relates to any type of parking spaces. Relative to the 60 feet, if the property line is put right down the side next to the Target building, the firewall that is mentioned would have to extend the full length of the Target building because now that building meets the 60 feet, not just the firewall between the two buildings. Mr. Viazanko stated the whole wall would have zero setback and it would have to be rated. From the picture, it appears that the beam and column line short of the Target wall and the top corner of the joists extend over to cover that space. Do you know about the distances between the column and the wall? Mr. Arlow stated the drawing is to scale. I believe it is about two feet and it is connected to the Target wall panel by a expansion joint and a termination bar where the roofing goes up the wall of Target and stops. So it’s not structurally connected to the membrane of the room. He also indicated that the vacant building has no wall and that the Target wall is that wall. Mr. Measel indicated that a three hour firewall full length to the Target building would be required to fire rate the steel in that last bay, as the vacant space could pull down the Target wall. Or, at least the column beam that the joists are sitting on would have to be rated. Mr. Harvey stated it’s kind of a catch 22 because the building is legal now; however, splitting the property would change the code requirements. Mr. Harvey made mention that the Board is allowed to give a variance if there’s an incorrect interpretation of the code but in this case, the code is clear. If the construction is equal or better than the variance it could be allowed but you can’t say that 0 separation is equal or better than 40 feet. I think they could get away with a 40 feet separation as I understand the code. Mr. Viazanko indicated that you can get a reduction of 40 feet on open perimeter, but you also have to be followed by a 3 hour firewall. The existing Target wall is a metal stud, so in order to get a 3 hour wall with existing conditions you would have to have a 3 hour firewall with 40 feet. Looking at the drawing, it appears that the beam and column line short of the Target wall and the top corner of the joists extend over to cover that space. Do you know about the distances between the column and the wall? Mr. Arlow said the drawing is to scale. I believe it is about two feet and it is connected to the Target wall panel by a expansion joint and a termination bar where the roofing goes up the wall of Target and stops. So it’s not structurally connected to the membrane of the room. Mr. Arlow stated the vacant building has no wall and the Target wall is that wall. It was indicated that the vacant space could pull down the Target wall. The vacant space: The vacant space could pull down the Target wall. Harvey indicated that there would be 0 foot between the buildings and you would need 3 hours on each building, that doesn’t mean a six hour wall, two parallel firewalls? Mr. Viazanko stated that one building can’t cross the property line. You can’t build one building on two parcels. So yes, each one would be independent. Also, you still have to deal with the area of the existing Target, which required a 60 foot clearance. Target was built to the size it is without being classified as unlimited area. We’ve done a calculation with a fire suppression increase and the most we can get out of that is around 56,000 square feet, which is basically close to half the size of the building. It went to an unlimited area because there is 60 feet all the way around it and now they want to split it. Board of Code Appeals January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 How do you split it? If successful in getting a variance to the open perimeter for an unlimited area, they could do it one way or they have to take down 60 feet. Mr. Harvey asked if there was any way they could get a variance with what we’re charged with in the code. Mr. Viazanko indicated there are many variables in the code that should be touched on - whether it’s setbacks, open perimeters, unlimited areas or fire ratings. These are four big sections of the code. This is only one option presented by the architects, which I had previously discussed with Jason. This Board was one option for them to consider. Mr. Measel cited that if they put a firewalls in the active building, there would not be any reduction in safety over what is there right now. He asked if they could appeal to the City Council? Mr. Viazanko stated he believes they would have to go to Circuit Court to appeal this, but he would have to look into that. Mr. Harvey expressed that if even if he thought it was reasonable, I don’t think we could legally give them a variance. I think perhaps the City Council could. They are the ones that adopt the code and they have some power over the code. Mr. Viazanko believes this Board has more power over the code; however, we would have to consult with the City Attorney. He further stated that this board cannot change the code but can give relief to the requirements of the code. You have the administrative authority to do so. Neither, the Building Official nor the Plan Reviewer Coordinator can make that determination. That is why we have a local board. It was indicated that the relief to the requirements of the code must be based on equal or better construction. Mr. Harvey stated he didn’t see how they could do that. Mr. Arlow was asked if their proposal included a firewall. Mr. Arlow replied that he was looking for a good compromise and thought that would include a 60 foot variance, which is really what the building has now. In reality, you cannot get around Target completely now either. When they do get a tenant or begin any construction in that building, they can put the firewall in at that time. The building would stay the way it is now and has been for a little while. Nothing would really be changing. Eventually, it would be safer because it would have a firewall. Mr. Harvey pointed out that at this time there is one owner but in the future, there is a possibility of having two different owners. Putting a firewall in now would certainly make it equal or better than the code. It was also asked if there was one sprinkler system or do they stand alone? Mr. Arlow stated it appears there are currently three sprinkler systems. Mr. Harvey pointed out that if the middle building is removed, the taxes would be decreased and that would give them the needed 100 feet between the buildings, and would give them the rating as well. It was asked if this was an option that had been discussed. Mr. Arlow stated he had a set of demolition plans sitting right next to him and would start looking at that option tomorrow. It was indicated that building a firewall would be economical. The rated wall would have to be a foot thick. Board of Code Appeals January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Harvey asked if Mr. Arlow could come up with some kind of plan that they could agree on and if so, they could table this until a later date. Mr. Viazanko stated that would be up to the applicant but he believes time is a factor. Motion by Measel, supported by Harvey, to deny a variance for both items: 1) the building (Target) will not have required 60’ of clearance due to adjacent existing building 2) the existing wall which separates building is not rated Yes: All Absent: Johnson Motion: Carried NEW BUSINESS – None. OLD BUSINESS – None. PARTICIPATION – None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Berg, supported by Harvey, to table the February 13, 2014 minutes until the next meeting. Yes: All Absent: Johnson Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Motion by Harvey, supported by Measel, to adjourn. Yes: All Absent: Johnson Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:34 pm Respectfully submitted, Thaddeus Stanek Chairman